The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-28
CONTINUED from Page one.)

ton, 1876 M Y.el3G. Al Il. n. "A, 2ai, %
Am. So. Rep. b47, state VS.. Anzel, rs
IS. 6. 1896, "A Am and Eng. Ann. Gas.
1913; Jonesboro, r. B. and u, Can
Turnp, 20, VS.. Brown, 5 Baxt. 400. "a
Am. Rep 713: State OK rel. Stewart
Us. Marke, 6 Lea IL; Bates VS.. Tay-
lor, 81 Tenn. Bf9; L. r. A. 3i6;
state OK rel Latture vs.. Board Of In.
|spno'ors, TIA Tenn. SIG; insane Asy.
lun VS.. Softly, 3 Arlz. 1872. IS l.. r. A.
1853; Haltranft's Appeal, So Pa. 43s, q
Am. Rep. G6T;f Mauran VS.. Smith, s
r. J. 1913, Am. Rep. 56i; Goff VS.. vii.
son, 32 w, Va. a93, J.. n. A. IS.
Woods vs. Sheldon, 8 8. d. 3e2,
Alabama, California, tplprajo, kan.
sas, Kentucky Maryland, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada. North Carolina
and Ohio held that the governor In
ministerial acts may be controlled By
the courts. In Georgia, Indiana and
Missouri, the carly cases tended that
way, but the later cases are Clearly
the other way. In Minnesota, III The
early cases, tho courts assumed the
power without passing on the ques.
tion, but later expressly departed
therefrom.
State, ex rel. Irvine VS.. Brooks.
Governor, "A Wyo. 393, G l.. r. A. IN.
Sd 1850, wherein the writ was award
led against the governor. IS based upon
sec. ., art, 3, cunst, 1889 OF that state,
which provides that "thc supreme
court Shall have original jurisdiction
in quo warranto and mandamus as tp
all state officers" So IL supports
neither line of the conflicting author.
tiles.
Marbury VS.. Madison, Cranch,
l3l, aud subsequent authorizations BY
the supreme Court Of the United
States, wherein ministerial acts Of
members Of the Presidents cabinet
have been held to be controlable by
the process oil courts OF competent
jurisdiction, have been called to our
attention, and also the eases OF Da.
Wis VS., Gray, 1G Wall. 203, l.. ed. li7,
Bond Of Liquidation VS.. McComb, 50
y. S. 531, % J.. Ed. G23, and Rolston
vs.. Missouri Fund Commissioners,
120 u. S. 3gl, 80 l.. Ed 721, wherein
1t was held that the Jurisdiction Of
the Federal courts might be invoked
to. restrain the governor OF state
from doing a wrongful act to the in.
jury Of individual rights. But no.
where in said cases is it intimated
that. the state courts have any such
jurisdc tion.
Also. in Bates VS.. Taylor, supra, it
is said:
A states judiciary sustalns the
same relation to its governor that
the Federal judiciary does to the
President OF the United states;
and as state court, by reason of
that relation, has no jurisdiction
TO coorce or restrain the governor
with respect to his official duties.
so the Federal courts, for the
same reason, have no power to
interfere with the official actions
OF the President. 1t was 80 held
in the case OF the State of Miss
issippi VS.. johnson, Wallace,
s99. "a
The opinion In this case was by
Caldwell, J., concurred in by Turney,
Ch. j., Lurton, Snodgrass and Folkes,
associate justices.
In several cases adjudlcated by
this court, the governor has been a
party thereto, but the question of
jurisdiction of the courts Of this state
as to him was not passed upon. City
of Pond Creek, ct al VS.. Haskell,
Governor, ct al. 2l Okla, III; Noble
State Bank VS.. Haskell ct AL, %
Okla, AS; Thompson, ct AL VS.. Has
kell, 1O2 (Okla.) pac. 200; Belts VS.,
Commissioners OF the state Land or,
flee, decided by fhis court, but not
yet officially reported
In Haskell, Governor, VS.. Relgel, Ct
al, los (Okla) Pac. 367, the ques-
ton Of jurisdiction as TO the COVER
nor was raised, and this court said:
In this case no opinion Is ex-
pressed as to whether the defend
ants In error could maintain this
action or as to the district court
OF Logan county having jurisdic-
ton to render a Judgment award.
ing writ OF mandamus against
tho plaintiff In error. the Cover
nor, supervising or controlling in
any way his action in matters in
yolying ministerial action.
Governor Not Above the Law.
In this action, the question OF jur-
.-.fstt.... ,...t....l