The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-02-04

"a 'a'H Hpsblic pafk IL puAYIc u{lllsy
lwhhsn the mpanlng OF that ierm az
used IN section ~ " Article 70 ~ Gle
constitution.
Az Incorporated cIly may. IN The
manner pr0yl0ad Ia said section Of the
ohstltution. issue bonds for the pur.
pose Of constructing sidewalks around
and walks and drpe.ways through Iig
Ioubllc park and for the paving Of the
slleels surrounding the same.
Arthur q. Armslroag. local agent
It the city OF Guthrie. county OF 10.
gan Of the state agency. for the SAFE
of Intoxicating liquorc uader the pro
Visions Of chapter 09 OF the Session
l.aws of Oklahoma. 1913, plalniiff IA
error. vs.. b. =, Berkcy defendant IN
error.
4. Where q proposition submitted
TO the people TO amend the c0nsliiu.
tion, IA fact contains two separate and
llslinct propositions one for the
amendment Of the constitution. and
the other for the approval or rejection
of an act, or a certain portion thereof
or the repeal OF the same, the two pro.
positions cannot be united IN the sub
mission 80 as 10 have one expression
of the voter answer both propositions,
as voters thereby might be induced
to vote Tor both propositions who
would not have done so II the ques.
lionE had been submitted slngly.
la While a proposition TO amend
the prohibition article OF the c0nsiifu-
tiOn relating 70 the state agency 90
an 10 extend Il to towns within this
state Of one thousand population or
more, or one such agency al any other
place Within This state whore the pub
lc necessity exists therefor TO be dc
termined by the superintendent with
the approval VI the governor. and q
for the approval OF re'
lection dr repeal Of article Of the
Enforcing Act, may be submitted at
The same election. The two cannot he
united IN one proposition so as to have
o ne expression Of the voter answer
both propositions
Error from TIE District Court Of 10
gan County. state Of Oklahoma, A. 4
Huston. trial Judge
/. The prohibition article. which,
was separately submitted with the coA
FOR ratification OF rejection
HE party assallng the same falling toll
point out IN what particular Il was NOT
properly submitted In accordance with
The Enabling Act (ch 1895, "a " 81
Stat. az Large, ia SO, part !. y, 267li
Il having been declared adopted. &C
nepted and recognized by the political
Of both the Federal ana
state governments, viii not be dc
nIarad hy the courts invalid on The
that II was not properly sub
mltted or adopted.
2. Il was The Intention OF the fran
era Of tho constitution that the proh'
bItion provision required to be incor
porated therein BY virtue Of paragraph
z Of section of The Enabling Act S1f
q. s. Stat. at Large, CHI $685., part 4.
3. 267. ig056l should be enfofeeaule
II the courts 0g the state Immediately
upon the admission OF the State INTO
ne Union.
ea. Such provision Was lncorporai
"a inaecil0n z. article 4 BY the franz
srs there0f with O Ike intent
20. The prohibition article (Bunn's
ia. SEC 4aa: snyder's sd p. 99i;
Zen. ann. p. 1G2l. was submitted es
J aenarate proposition with the inteH
.lcn lhai n should become effectlYel
leer tbe entire nlate in like manner E
approved by the people. and The con
tllni0n was also ratified
%. A license issued under g sen
arnl statute to a danler Il liquors is
h no abnae contract between th
state aud the licenses and Is not pro
ected by tho contract clause Of ihe
Federal constitution, being q mere per.
mir. which may be modified, annulled
sr revoked at the pleasure og the lev.
klatipe power
"a. A aehedule 10 a convention gen
orally contains temporary provisions