The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-11-15
RROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
LOGAN COUNTY.
"A. III. Huston, Judge.
AFFIRMED.

Ohio, unalterable, unless by common
consent--one Of which stipulations Is,
that no person demeaning himself in
a peaceable manner, shall ever be mo-
Tested on account OF his mode of wor-
ship, or religious sentiments, in the
said Territory For this provision
Is claimed the sanction of an unalter.
able law Of congress: and ii is insist
ed the city ordinance is north of the
Ohio, we do not pretend TO say, as
| II is unnecessary for the purposes OF
this case. But as regards the state Of
Louisiana, IL had no further force,
after the adoption of the state con
stitution, than other acts OF congress
organizing, In part, the territorial
government OF Orleans. and standing
in connection with the ordinance OF
1887. so far as they conferred poliii-
cal rights, and secured civil and reli-
gious liberties (Which are political
rights. the laws of congress were
all superseded by the state consti-
tuition; nor is any part OF them In
force, unless they were adopted by
the constitution OF Louisiana as laws
of the state. = II follows, no re-
pugnance could arise between the or
dinance of 1887 and an act of the
Legislature of Louisiana. or city reg.
ulatlon founded on such act;
and dismissed the case for want OF
Jurisdiction.
The ordinance lrrevocabIe
See also Recanaba & Co. vs. City
of Chicago. II Otto u. s. 67S-69l (;
Pollard's Lessee VS.. Hagan, 3 How.
PIP; Bollin VS.. Neb. l76 U. S. SO;
Ward VS.. Race Horse, 163, H. s. 504.
Eut these cases do not decide the
force and effect on the state OF an act
accepted by ordinance irrevocable by
delegates in constitutional convention
assembled and hence the rule there
laid down has no immediate applica-
tion here. When congress by virtue
of the Enabling Act rendered to these
/ delegates thus assembled the grant
OF power therein contained authoriz-
ling them under certain conditions
precedent 10 form state govern
/ ment and instructing them as to what
their constitution should contain, 1t
was for the convention to accept and
, comply or reject and disperse To
this grant of power the court in
Frdntz ct al. VS.. Autry. Is Okla, sol
said:
1T is true that congress mas the
! power to impose conditions upon a
territory. as condition precedent to
entitle il to admission as a state. Ac-
cordingly. congress placed certain re-
strictions and limitations upon the
convention, which II was required to
incorporate into the constitution. and
to be ratified by the people. Those
limitations aad restrictions, when
ratified by the people, became a part
OF the fundamental law of the state.
When, therefore. congress authorized
the people of Oklahoma and Indian
Territory TO form constitution and
state government and be admitted in.
to the Union on an equal footing
with the original states: it meant
that it SHOULD be admitted on equal
terms with the original states. Hence
the enabling act was not a limited
or restricted grant, but 1t was an alb.
solute grant, subject to the constitu
ton of the United States. and the
limitations and restrictions imposed
in the enabling act as a condition
precedent to such admission"
One of those conditions was: SEC
22. That the constitutional conven.
tion provided for herein shall by or.
dinance irrevocable. accept the terms
and conditions of this act" Accord
ingly In accepting said grant Of pow
er the convention adopted this or
dinanee:
i BE II ordained by the constitution
al convention for the proposed state
OF Oklahoma, that said constitutional
convention do, by this ordinance IN
I revocable. accept the terms and con
diiiOns of an act OF congress OF the
/ United States. entitled, An Act 10
Enable the People of Oklahoma and
the Indian Territory TO form a Con.
stltution and State Government and
be admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original states,
and TO Enable the People of New
Mexico and OF Arizona TO form a CON
stitution and State Government and
be admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original
states approved June the sixteenth,
Ammo Domini. Nineteen hundred and
six"
Convention Spoke For The People
In thus accepting, the convention
was speaking for the whole people OF
the proposed state ana was exercising
legislative or law making power OF
the highest order. Brices American
Con. 436 says:
"A state constitution Is really moth
/ ins but law made directly BY the
people voting at the polls upon a
draft submitted to them. The peo-
rle of state when tbev so vote act
ss a primary and constituent assem-
Diy, yust a. If tDey were All summon.
ed to meet in one place like the folk
notes of our Teutonie forefathers, it
is only their numbers that prevent
them from so meeting In one place,
and oblige the vote to be taken in a
variety of polling places. Hence the
lenactment of constitution is an ex
ercise of direct popular sovereignty
to which we find are parallels in
modern Europe. though IL was famil-
lar enough to the republic of antiqui-
ty and has lasted until now In some
Of the countries OF Switzerland
Or, as stated in Goodrich VS.. Moore
Mimi 49, where speaking OF the