The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1910-06-22
BY Associated Press.

Guthrie, Okla, June 22.-In the cap
ital removal injunction case B. f. Bur-
well. of Oklahoma City. today, con-
sumed the entire forenoon with an ex-
haustive presentation of all phases of
the question. A decision is expected
tonight.
1t developed Tuesday during the
arguments on the application of w.
H. Coyle of Guthrie for an injunction
against the removal of the capital of
Oklahoma from Guthrie to Oklahoma
City that the case may possibly be
thrown out of court through lack of
Jurisdiction unless Coyle is able to
show through his attorneys that he
will be compelled to pay in additional
taxes because of the removal of the
capital a sum in excess of $4,000, the
jurisdictional amount required to get
a hearing in federal court.
Judge Campbell clearly indicated
that in federal procedure the juris-
dictional amount is an important fea-
ture, and that it must be clearly shown
before a plaintiff can claim rights in
the court. The court therefore asked
the Guthrie attorneys to throw more
light on this point as being an essen
tial consideration in the final deter
mination of the court whether or not
is can assume jurisdiction in the pres
ent case. II the court holds that he
has jurisdiction, then the question of
whether the terms and conditions of
the enabling act, especially the 1913
clause, is binding upon the state must
be settled, and if the court holds that
it is, the conclusion would be that no
legal authority existed for the enact
ment of law for the location of the
capital, and that Governor Haskell and
the other state officers have no legal
authority to recognize any city other
than Guthrie as the seat of state gov
ernment.
Attorney c. G. Homer, on behalf of
Guthrie, contended that it could be
clearly shown to the court that w. FL.
Coyle would be required to pay more
than $4,000 in additional taxes, not at
any one time or in any definite period
OF time, but ultimately when the en-
tire plan under the capital removal
bill Of expending the 100000 appro-
priated by it and Of building perma-
nent capital buildings is carried out.
4 Attorney General West, on behalf
of the governor and other defendants
in the suit declared that the court can
only take judicial notice of the fact
that the bill appropriates 100000 and
that it must take judicial notice of the
additional fact that the total assessed
valuation of the state is only little
in excess oil $500, 100000, which he
declared would only represent an ad-
ditional rate of taxation by reason Of
the removal of the capital of .0007 per
cent and that it would be necessary
for W. H. Coyle, the plaintiff in the
case, to show to the court that he is
the owner of real estate in the state
of Oklahoma of an assessed valuation
of $S.500,O00 in order to claim the jur-
isdiction of the court over his case
Aside from the jurisdictionaI ques-
tion, most of the arguments of counsel
on both sides of the case was adj
dressed to the court upon the propo-
sition of whether the terms of the eE
abling act fixing the temporary cap
}ital of the state at Guthrie until 1918
j NC. G. Homer, the last of the Guthrie
attorneys to speak, enlarged upon the
powers Of congress to impose condi
tions upon new states and cited author
tiles to show that this power was
granted by the constitution of the
United States, not in express language
but through the provision which gives
congress authority to pass such laws as
may be necessary to carry into effect
the provisions of the constitution. He
also declared that the Interpretation Of
the constitution Of the United States
as fixed by congress and the president:
OF the United States for hundred
years past when fixing and approving
conditions upon the admission O.
states should have great weight will