The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1907-01-04
JUDGE THOMAS ABLE LETTER
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

F.
ray. president. CdnstituttdnaI Convsn.
tion, Guthrie. Okla. My Sear Sir =
The importance which the glssss.s vvuy !,
Of the organized Democracy IN Colo
rado attached 10 the subject matter OF
this communication must be my |
apology. II any is needed. for address
ing this communication to you. The
experiences which our commonwealth |
hags undergone during the past five
years and the manner IN which some !
o. the plainest provisions Of our con-
stitution have been construed or over !
ridden by the Supreme court of the
state, together with the consequences |
which seem to me to be a logical re-
suit of such action impel me to call
your attention to them to the end
that the convention over which yer
isre presiding may forever prevent q
recurrence OF these experiences In the
state of Oklahoma.
The phraseoiogy used by the max
ers Of our constitution in formulating
our bill or rights and specifying the
respective powers Of the three de-
partmcnts OF government authority is
very similar to that which is found in
the constitution of other states. Natur-
ally one would infer that the construc-
ton given to such provision in contro-
versies arising Hereunder would har-
moni2e with that which has been
given by other jurisdictions In this,
I however, we have within the past five
years been bitterly undeceived. Our
supreme court has inaugurated what
may be called departure in constitu-
/ tional construction and has arrogated
10 itself an authority which seams 10
have no limitation, either In the con-
stitution or outside % It, This action
upon les part seems TO have been
! prompted by the desire of majority
| OF its members to meet what they
| sometime call new conditions and TO
| conserve the public welfare as that
term is construed by huge industrial
organizations
The history of this course of pro-
cedure is too extended for the limits
\ OF a letter like mine. II is embodied,
however, in the decisions Of the SUI
I preme court which are, of course,
available TO the members of your con-
vention.
In brief the order of events began
with the case of The People vs. The
District Court, reported I'm 80 Colo
1S2. which was contempt proceeding
! against the state board of assessors.
, This board was created by the legisla-
tive act of 1901 to assess certain cor
porate property consisting of railways
and the like IT met and proceeded
TO make assessments approximating
somewhat In amount TO the actual val
ne of the property assessed. This be-
ing entirely unusual. Judge of the
district court enjoined its action. The
hoard ignored the Injunction and was
! promptly attached and punished for
contempt Its members appealed 20
the supreme court for relief and thai
court held the Injunction 80 be void
but a majority OF il decided the board
; to be In contempt nevertheless, and
| ordered It to undo its action accord
ingly. Hitherto II had been regarded
as a settled proposition that contempt
could not be predicated of void in
junction Our court by this decision
determined the contrary, AS re
suit the work of the board OF flasses
sors was destroyed as completely by
the operation Of void process as II
would have been by a writ perfectly
legal IN all respects.
The same assembly proposed az
amendment TO the constitution Great
ing a municipality called the city and
; county OF Denver. which was adopted
by very large majority at the nexl
. election. The public service corpora
tions attacked the constitutionality o.
this constitutional amendment, but Il
was sustained by a majority of the
court In the case as reported in Inc
People VS.. Sours, 81 Colo. 800. As .
result the people Of the city ant
| county OF Denver formed q chartef
convention, adopted the charter ans
held an election. at which the Demo
cratic, ticket was overwhelming,
elected. AT the next election county
tickets were nominated, notwithstand
ing this fact, In consequence of which
proceedings in quo warrantto We're IN
stituted against the incumbrents o
the county officers and the constitu
. uonality of the Twentieth Article wai
again attached On this, a maiorit,
J. of our court practically reversed 10
former decision, and deliberately an
r. nounced that part OF our constitu
), ton was unconstitutional, with tn
* result that the old officers We're no
only deposed, but We're not even giYei
~ the privilege of q contest; and othe
a onicials Of a different faith We're In
n stalled In their places (See Peop
Il VS.. Johnson, Sc Pac. 233) II is tru
y that Justice Maxwell attefpted to sus
u tain his reasoning by asserting con
j aict between the Twentieth Articl
q and the Constitution OF the unite'
:. States by declaring that the artici
Z created aud imperium i'm imperio an
I therefore was repugnant to the federt
Z constitution In as much, however
y as MIR, Justice Brewer In ST. Loul
y vs. Telegraph company, l49 Y. 5. 46'
y had declared that state under It
= constitution could do precisely tina
n thing. it is difficult 10 escape the coi
II clnsion that the decision OF our 81
Y preme court was prompted by othe
le motives than constitutional ones.
le As result OF labor strike OF yer
G serious proportions in 1903 and 1870
~ Governor Peabody declared the cou
n ties of Teller and San Miguel TO b
Ne in a state OF insurrection. He caile
e. out the militia which he had oerfe'
ripht 10 do He then turned them owe