The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-11-02

After comforting and examining au.
thorities almost all day. the judges
who sat in the grandfather clause
hearing in the Federal court handed
down their decisions late last evening
In which they refuse to grant the IN
terlocutory injunction asked for by
the Republican attorneys.
Attorney Ledbetter had fled a plea
In abatement for the defendant set
ting up that he had resignos as reg
istration inspector, but the court over
ruled the plea, saving chat the defend
ant did not cease 10 be inspector I'M
til hts successor had taken the place.
Decision Based IN Alabama Case
As will be seen by the opinion, the
judges decided this case on the ali-
tlority OF Giles VS.. Harris, 1S9 L. 5.
AIS, which held that "a circuit couis
OF the United states in Alabama has
not jurisdiction of an action in equity
brought by colored man, resident
in Alabama, on behalf of himself and
other negroes to compel the board OF
registrars to enroll their names upon
the voting lists of the county in which
they reside under constitution all
legged to be contrary to the eonstltu-
ton of the United States.
a Similar state OF Affairs
The facts brought out in the full
opinion in the Alabama case show Il
similar state of affairs to that in Ok
lahoma Negroes who had voted up
to 1903 we're disqualified and attempt
ed to get their names placed on the
rolls by injunction, the supreme court
OF the United States holding that it
had NO jurisdiction There was a dis
sentng opinion by Justice Brewer,
but as he has since died, the case is
stronger now than il was then, as
only two judges joined him in bis
dissenting opinion, which left six in
favor of the position taken by the
court.
The Opinion In Full
The opinion in full is as follows.
In The Circuit Court of the United
States for the Western District
of Oklahoma
Daniel Sims, complainant, VS.. p X.
Finch, defendant.
In Equity. No. 705.
Order Denying Injunction
The order to show cause why an In
terlocutory injunction restraining the
defendant from preventing the com
plainant from voting for represents
tive in congress and other officers at
the election to be held on November
8. 1910. was heard by the undersigned
on the thirty-first day of October, A.
ID. 1910 The defendant irxerposed
a plea IN abatement on the ground
that he had resigned his Office OF cleo
tion inspector, but the fact was adj
mitted that his successor had not
been chosen o. appointed and had
not qualified.
John II. Burford. ESQ, and John
Devereaux, Esqs argued for the IN
junction, and Hon. Charles West, at
torney general OF the state of Okla.
homa. and w. A. Ledbetter Esq,
against the Issuance of the injunction
and now after deliberatisn and due
consideration,
Il is ORDERED that the plea in
abatement be and the same Is hereby
oyerruled ON the ground that tie de-
fendant does not cease to be inspector
until his successor is chosen and has
qualified on the authority of Badger
VS.. Bales. 80 u. s. 599. COZ. 604-5.
And it is further ordered that the
application for the interlocutory in
junction be and the same is hereby
denied, not on the ground tiaat sec
ton "A of Article 3. of the constitu
tIon OF Oklahoma, voted for at the
election In August, A. d. 191, Is not
violative of the constitution OF the
United States. but on the sole ground
that although the complainant ma,
have a remedy at law in this courI
for the deprivation Of his right x
vote, the court has no jurisdiction II
equity to grant him the relief ht
seeks from his threatened deprivation
OF that right under the decision o