The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-07-10

1t is stated in the opinion that to
prevent the results therein described
United States may invoke the aid OF
its courts, and That question was
put to rest in the decision of in re
Debbs, l5S U. S. 564."
It is respectfully submitted that the
decision of the supreme court Of the
United States in re Debbs affords
no precedent for maintaining juris-
dicticn in the cases at bar. One OF
the governmental functions of the
United States is the transportation OF
its mails. That function bears no re-
lation whatever TO the personal and
individual transactions in this litiga-
ton. The prompt and efficient trans
portation of the mails is both duty
of the government and burden as
sumed by it. Such duty is imposed
by numerous statutes and established
by generations of usage. 1t is duty
to the public, the whole natlon-a
governmental function. 1t is not a
governmental function to bring suit
against one citizen in favor Cf an
other, nor does it bear any resemb-
lance thereto.
But it is said that possibility of the
Indians becoming pauperized and dis
contented and possibly war-like, af-
fords grounds to invoke the jurisdlc-
ton of the court The parties on
whose behalf these suits are brought
are citizens and residents of the state
of Oklahoma. The burden OF caring
for these citizens of the state OF Ok
lahoma, if they become pauperized,
is upon the state and not upon the
nation. If it is governmental func-
ton to pacify the discontented, that
function would perhaps rest on the
state of Oklahoma and not the ma
tiona government. The matter OF
maintaining peace within the boun-
daries of the state OF Oklahoma is
with the state of Oklahoma and not
with the national government. If
a theoretical policy may confer jur-
isdiction or authorize the mainten-
ance of a suit, is not the state of
Oklahoma, under the reasoning of the
court, the proper party to maintain
these actions?
But it is submitted that the court
mas fallen into error in not distin-
gushing between the discharge Of a
governmental function and intemed-
ding in controversies beween its citi-
zens. 1t is said that if the govern
ment's interest in its measures,
meaning, we presume, laws, does not
give it a standing in court, then the
violation of those measures 0aws)
must go wholly without redress. No
reason IS urged to sustain this state
ment. In subsequent part OF the
opinion it is held that the allottee
may bring a suit to accomplish the
identical results sought to be accom-
plished by these suits. May the court
indulge in a presumption that he will
not do so, and in that event the Unit
ed States must do so, and because
the United States must do so that
forsooth the court has jurisdiction?
1t is not believed that jurisdiction
founded upon such grounds can be
properly sustained
1t is said in another part of the
opinion, Congress by its own declar-
alton could have placed that question
beyond controversy. Let it
be conceded that congress declined
so to do. Is not the very fact that
congress has declined, after it's atten-
ton has been called to the matter,
to place the jurisdiction beyond con-
troversy the very strongest evidence
that congress did not intend the ex-
ercise of such jurisdiction?
1t is said that the trial court used
dangerous standard of interpreta.
ton when it considered what con.
gress refused to do. Does not the
Interpretation adopted by this court
give much more effect to the non,
action of congress than does the opin.
| ion of the trial court? The United
States can invoke jurisdiction of its
, courts only when authorized by law
so to do. No statute has been found
authorizing the maintenance of these
suits. This court finds public policy
a source of jurisdiction, although con
gress has not directly or indirectly
said So
1t was insisted in the trial court
that public policy conferred jurisdic
ton. The trial court was searchinc
for evidence of that public policy. j
was claimed to be found in the &C