The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1907-05-15
ATTORNEY WHITLEY ON
PANCOASI'S DECISION.
Allntnes Mhllels sala 90.

Attorney Whitely said today.
In The case Of 6 .E Autry VS.
Frank Frantz ef al IN the district
court Of woods county. Oklahoma ter
rltory before Judge paNcoasi, the
co ti seems 10 divide the questions Ia.
YoltCd as Nesting upon two diainetri-
cally opposite positions Under The
plainiins contention that the enabling
act grants and specifically limits the
action ol the constitutional conven-
tion IA It's powers, and under tho de-
fendants contention that tte people
are the soffcc of all power subject
only 20 The Limitation OF the constitr-
iicn OF the United States and the pro
Visions Of Tire enabling act itself the
judge disposes OF the contention Of the
defendants IN the following language:
The argument that becase moth
ing Is said pon a given subiec' IN the
enabling act. that non that subject
unlimited power Is conferred shen all
power has passed both from Tho con-
srcas Of the United States and from
the Deopie OF the territory.
Now is II true that either Of these
aed ctons are corfect2 Would It be
scrio SIS contcndod that il Congress
desired ~. # is beyond It's power even
now TO repeal tho enabling actg Again.
II tie people desired to Kill statehood
is there any question that voting
saainst It that they thus prove that
they still retain the power to do as
they pleaseg
~This being true of each OF the
mdees del ctions as the basis Of mis-
decision disappears from this insDec-
a 5frllf ~
The 3uigc his error
Now the jdgc seems to view the
plaintiffs theory as the giiidine rnlc
for this case He. however, seems 70
overlook that there IS as mu b Of a
dnal relation in the exercise Of con
eressional pr1er and that exercised
hy lhe people thfcGh their delegates
as there Is between Federal and state
powers,
"Snpposa Congress- neglected and
refused 70 ctcr permit Oklahoma and
indian Territory to become a state,
would this prove that Cougress in so
DOING either cted silly or lawfully?
eWonld Il not rather prove that
Congress was abusing its power and
asaassinaiirg the rights Of the people
10 enjoy state government under the
fa,sssputed facts that the desires Of
orr people wanting II ana the re
50 fcas Of the people being ample TO
sunnou II, that they IN 50 doing were
themselves acting al wfuliy and yet
all this granted there IS no power
through or BY official coercion that
CONGRESS can be compelled 70 do its
duty or punished for It's neglect The
itlige seems 10 regard the creation Of
new counties ort OF old ones as
iiieral bccause nties now already |
exist now Il this position were ten
able how ccnld the people ever make
chinge through tho legislature7 II |
ibat reason viii restrain the people |
through one body and by one method |
then why not by either?
n thea the people possess the |
ptiHer 10 make The change does Il not
resolve itself simply into . question
Of propriety or cxpodioncy for them |
TO say when and why they shogld
mako the change?
Now The Judge seems TO think II
the people tamper with these counties /
nov that the whole machinery Of gov
ernmcnt Will bec0nc worthless and 1
void. snd fraudulent voting can not
bn niahed
The ludge oyerlooks entirely the
provision IN Section q of the enabling
act that reads:
Such state government snail re-
main IA abeyance until The state shall
be admitted into the lInipn and the |
Slectlon Of state officers held as pro
yIded f3r IN th1 act. and ~ .
sssaH nHH sn n d = \ ~