The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1910-07-29

Oklahoma City when the court filed
In at 1 o'clock yesterday. The court
wasted no time but read the syllabus
and adjourned.
AS soon as the news was flashed
from convention han to the city, the
noise began. A chorus of siren whist
les, automobile horns and reyolvers
lasted continuously until well into the
evening.
Under the present status OF the
case, District Judge Huston win con.
tinue the trial OF the application of
County Attorney Hepburn Of Logan
county for permanent injunction
against the removal Of the state books
and records on the ground that the
election on June II was illegal be.
cause of the form Of ballots used. and
the provisions Of the enabling act and
that removal would be attended by an
unlawful expenditure of public funds.
The decision of the supreme court
Is most sweeping and touched on al
most every phase of the state capital
question. Among other points re-
ferred to Is that in regard To the pow
er OF the government The court holds
1.-THE matter determining the legal seat
OF government Is a judicial and not
administrative one. which finding en-
tirely eliminates the contention Of
Governor Haskell that Oklahoma is
the capital OF the state. The COVER
nor may go where he pleases. but
legally his Official acts must appear as
having been performed in Guthrie It
is stated that all the state officials who
have gone to Oklahoma City under
orders from the governor will return
to this city at once.
IN summing up that question JUS
tiee Williams says:
IN this action the question Of iuris-
dietion Is raised squarely by the coun-
sci for the governor. and we conclude
that the courts of this state may not
control the actions Of the chief exc
cutive Of the state. But, in 80 hold
ing. It does not follow that the COVER
nor Of a state Is above the law He
and his acts are as much subject to the
law as the humbiest citizen Of the
! commonwealth, but tribunal other
+ than the courts must be resorted to fot
a correction Of his official wrongs. Il
any. to.wit, the legislature. SO far al
his official acts may be contrary L
, law and void, that question may bt
raised by private parties before tbs
[ courts In determination as to private
5 rights when the governor Is not 1
party"
The syllabus IN the case, which sum
marizes the holdings Of the court, +
I a. follows:
3 1. The county attorney may brinl
: an action properly triable IN the dis
g trict court Of his county IN the nami
Of the state 10 enioin state oiiieeri
e other than the governor from misap
1 plying public funds or applying then
TO use or for a purpose or at a plaef
e prohibited by the constitution OF b.
. Law. Injunction viii lie az the suit o
s the state brought by the county attoI
o ney as an executive law officer % en-
!. join the executive officers Of the atat
!. other than the governor from remos
/. ing their Offices. public records, book
and papers from the seat Of govern
y ment and expending the funds Of tn
2 state for such purpose.
e 2. The district courts Of this stat
n have no jurisdiction to control the II
d tion Of the governor even IN minister
e ial acts.
n 3. District court Of Logan count
has the power to enjoin said oiiieen
i other than the governor from using 9
Il applying public funds contrary so IL
d or 1t place unauthorized BY law
4, has authority to enioin such state Of
IS GERS. not only from misapplying {
d distributing such funds Illegally. bI
N also IN connection Herewith to r
IS. strain them from removing their Q
IN fees and public records, books an
ID papers from the seat Of government