The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-11-15

pursuant TO an act OF the law-mak
ing power OF the state Is political
right and its exercise the exercise
of political or governmental power
and a municipal right OF sovereignty
which the state Is Doweress TO bar
ter away, by compact or otherwise
Tucker on the constitution y, GA
says:
THE states have confided 10 COM
lhropertypceycmfwyp
gress as their agent the admission
OF state into the Union under the
constitution Can this constitution
al authority in congress be construed
as 70 invest congress as an agent
with powers to impose conditions
upon the new members which the
constitution has not prescribed? And,
II SO, does the new state enter the
Union shorn Of its power pre- tanto
| by the agent authorized to open its
doors to the new commonwealth
without any such condition? Toe bet
| ter opinion would clearly be that
congress could not impose as an OBJ
legation upon state at the time o.
tits admission into the Union such q
restriction as 1t had no original pow
CT to enact or enforce
In Ballard's Lessees VS.. Hagan, .
How. 221 the court said
when Alabama was admitted into
the Union on an equal footing with
| the original states, she succeeded to
Ian the rights Of sovereign juris1ic
Ito nand eminent domain which Geor-
! gia possessed at the date OF the Sc
eession, except SO far as this right
was diminished by the public lands
remaining In the possession and un'
der the control OF the United States
i Tor the temporary purposes provided
for the deed Of cession, and the leg
j islatiye acts connected with II.
i Nothing remained ~ the United
States, according TO the terms In the
agreement but the public lands, and
if an express stipulation had been in
serted in the agreement, granting the
Municipal right Of sovereignty and
eminetn domain to the United states,
such stipulation would have been
void and imperative, because the
4 United States have no constitution.
al capacity to exercise municipal jur'
isdlction, sovereignty or eminent do
main. within the limits o. Il state, or
elsewhere, except in the cases where
II Is expressly granted
In the United States ex rel, Fried
man ct al. vs. United States Express
Co., 1850 Fed. 1906, the court said.
1T must therefore be conceded
when Oklahoma was admitted nnde.
1, the Federal constitution into the
Union as state, the act OF admls
: sion gave to her ali the powers and
Z devolved upon her all the duties
which belong to the other states un
der the constitution, anything in the
enabling act to the contrary nolwith
. standing. She could come into the
Union in no other way. BY virtue oi
the constitution her admission fixed
her status and that OF her people, 10
the people of other states, to u1e
other states themselves, and to the
Federal government. Congress can
rot exact OF a state-eyen state
coming into the Union-the surren
der or waiver of any of the consu
tutionally inherent powers of SOY
1 ereignty under tin constitution OF
+ such as belong to the original states.
{ nor can a state either surrender OF
: stpuate away any Of its sovereignty
[ or render herself less sovereign than
! the other states. Bearing these prin
(, ciples in mind, congress knew that
the moment oklahoma was admitted
7 into the Union as state that the
2 laws regulating interstate commerce
/ must apply to Oklahoma as TO all ta1
+ other states: il knew that the power
: over intrastate commerce would
inure to the state of Oklahoma by the
act of admission; il knew that Ok
/ lahoma must enact its own laws reg
ulating intrastate commerce, for the
} simple reason that the power TO en-
/ act such laws had not been granted
+. TO congress: 1t knew that the great
body of laws traceable to the police
: power of the state must be enacted
by the state for the same reason
. case From state OF Mississippi
Stone VS.. state of Mississippi, II
Otto -S14-Sl2, was error TO the su
Z preme court of Mississippi. The suit
! was originally commenced by mfor
nation filed in the circuit court OF
; Warren county by the attorney geh
t eral OF Mississippi in behalf OF the
, state against the plaintiffs ia error
} defendants below. requiring them to
SLOW by what warrant or authority
/ they exercised the franchise of run
i ming lottery in the state. Defend
lant pointed to Il certain act of the
!, legislature OF Mississippi which they
claimed conceded them the franchise
Of issuing and vending lottery tick
, cts. They admitted that by Ger
1 tain section of the constitution oil
\ the state it was provided that such
! should not be authorized by the leg
i islature and that by subsequent act
of the legislature il was made unlaw-
lull to conduct a lottery in the state.
they insisted that they had complied
1 with the terms OF the charter for
conducting their business in accord
lance Herewith and that the constitu'
i lon and act of the legislature afore-
said interferred with their busine -
in accG' aanee Herewith and that the
conruuIon and act of the legisla
ture aforesaid interferred with their
vested rights In violation of the con-
stitution of the United States in at
tempting to impair the obligation OF
a contract The court in passing,
among other things, held the power
! Of government to be trust commit
tod hy the neoule 10 the government