The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1910-07-06


B. F. Burwell of Oklahoma City had
presented a lengthy argument to the
supreme court yesterday in closing
| the capital removal case, to the effect
that under the distribution Of powers
the governor had the same right to In
terpret the law for himself that the
courts had and could not be interfer-
ed with by them, the court adjourned
until next Monday. 1t is expected that
an effort will be made to hand down
a decision in the case at that time.
Each side was given until tonight to
| file its main briefs and until Thursday
night for reply by briefs.
Judge Burwell's view of the respec-
tive powers Of the governor and the
courts did not seem to take well with
| the supreme court, indicating a strong
disposition to maintain its own dignity
and authority. They gave considerable
ground for the belief that the writ of
prohibition will be denied. Judge Bur
well was the only attorney heard yes
terday.
Even if the act is wrongful one
declared Mr.. BurwelI, this court has
no power to interfere. The judiciary
has no authority to invade the dis
cretionary power or political power of
L
the executive department. the courts
cannot interfere with injunction or
mandamus unless the case involves.
personal or property rights"
After he had cited cases from num-
Der of states bearing on the supposed
immunity of the governor from the
control of the courts, Justice Hayes
asked if, in his opinion, the governor
was supreme in the Interpretation of
llaw.
He is supreme in the Interpretation
of the law as to all political duties
pertaining to his Office" replied Bur
well.
Justice Kane then suggested that
the supreme court must sit at the
seat of government.
"The governor says that it is at
Oklahoma City," he said Suppose
we decide to sit here, what effect
would that have?"
you could hold your session here
on anywhere else you saw fit, " replied
Mr.. Burwell. There would be no one
to prevent it,
Justice Hayes referred to the fact
that the court already had mandamus-
sed the secretary of state on a politi-.
cal question in the Taylor election law
case Burwell replied that was a ques-
tion Of personal right, involving the
right of the signers of the referendum
petition to secure a vote on the act
What is the difference?" asked JUS
tiee Hayes, between the right to vote
on measure and the right to have
official business done at the state cap
lital?"
Burwell explained that all political
acts affected person or property to
some degree. but that when all per
SONS were affected alike that feature
was not to be considered.
"Then / understand you to contend,
said Justice Williams. that it would
have been possible to force a vote on
| the location of the capital, but that
after the vote is taken neither an in
dividual nor the state can force the
location"
THAT absolutely is correct" replied
Burwell, who went on to say that each
department of government must inter-
pret the law for itself. Justice Kane
then inquired whether under the pro-
vision of the legislation making the
various officers part of the executive
department the labor commissioner
might decide that the capital was at
EI Reno, the corporation commission
at Shawnee, and 50 on.
Some department must have the
power to determine the seat of gov
ernment,s he said. TO which the 9th
ers must yield. Whenever tie legis-
llative and executive departments
have fixed the seat of government the
judiciary has universally conformed
Chief Justice Dunn: 'Do you claim
that the supreme court may not deter
mine for itself where the seat of gov