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

~ fFHtSs4 ~ sns SeS6t
From an order granting temper
AIRY Injunction rendered and entered
In the district court Of Logan county
restraining Thomas P. Smith, secre-
tary OF state, and IA other state offi-
GERS from removing any of the prop
erty pertaining to their several offices
from the city of Guthrie, and from
doing any official act al any other
place, pursuant TO the prayer OF a
petition fled in said court in the
name OF the state of Oklahoma, on
the relation OF James Hepburn, coun'
~ attorney of said county. alleging,
In substance, that the pretended an-
th0rify under which defendants were
about TO act, being State Question No.
Is. Initiative Petition No. z, pnrport-
ing to submit TO a vote OF the people
the selection of place for the perm
anent location OF the capital OF the
state. duly filed with the secretary
OF state, voted on by the people at
an election held Juni .1th, 1910, and
by proclamation OF the governor de-
clared lawfully adopted, enacted and
approved by the people, and Oklaho-
ma City at said election TO have been
duly and lawfully selected as tho
place for the permanent location OF
the cariial OF tie state by the peo-
pie thereof; was never In fact, and
for certain reasons stated. properly
submitted TO vote Of the people and
never by them adopted. and for that
reason never became q law and, If
properly submitted and adopted. the
same Is In conflict with that part OF
the Act Of Jnne 10th. 1906, known as
the Enabling Act, which provides IN
ef9ect, that the capital Of the state
shall temporarily be at the city OF
Guthrie. and shall NOT be legally
changed therefrom prior TO the year
1913, which was by the constitution
al convention adopted by ordinance
irreYocable, and for that reason said
measure Is unconstitutional and void,
and that said removal will involve an
unlawful expenditure OF 100000 OF
the moneys OF the state. plaintiffs In
error. defendants below, bring tho
case here and ASSIGN for error the
granting Of said order.
The Enabling Act
The rip>t NJ The tr'a court 70 en-
tertain Jurisdiction Of this suit hav
Ing 0een recently decided in It's iav-
or as to all the defendants save the
governor, in Haskell, GOV. VS.. Huston,
Judge. - Okla. ---: an original ap-
piication for a writ Of prohibition, not
vet officially reported. we pass to the
merits OF this cause.
In granting the order comnlained
Of the trial court held that the
initiated bill, II legally adopted, IN
tsat II purported to change the loca.
fion OF the capital OF the state and
permanently located the same prior
10 the year 1913. was In conflist with
that partjof the Enabling Act, wh;ch
provides
The capital OF said state shail
.femporarily be at the city of Guth'
RE. In the present Territory of Ok
lahoma. and shall mol be changed
therefrom previous TO Ammo Dominl
Nineteen Hundred and Thirteen, but
said capital shall, after SAID year, be
located By the electors of said state
AZ an election TO be provided for by
the legislature. and as said act was
adopted by the constitutional conyen
fion by ordinance irrevoeable the
same hereby became contract OF
ronpact between the soyereignties
state and federal, the bill must fall
ns In violation OF said compact On
The other hand il is eontended that
the Enabling Act was an act deiln
ing the metes and bounds of the
grant OF power to the delegates. IN
constitutional convention assembled
and suggestions pr instructions TO
them as to what tie constitution
should contain. no part OF which re
NAMED In force after the creation OF
the state except such as the provl'
sion of the Enabling Act to the ef'
feet that the capital shall temporarily
be al Guthrie and shall not be chang
ed therefrom previous to 1913 was
never so adopted. II has no binding
effect on the state
Authorities Cited
RI support of their contention de
l%HHdHtt rely tu EaAhaoh W A"Ht
ipality No. |, OF the City OF New Or
leans. 3 How. $50, and kindred eases
In that case plaintin In error was
fined $50 for the violation of a city
ordinance making Il an offense to ex-
pose corpse In any OF the Catholic
churches of the municipality under
penalty Of that amount. The cause
was brought up by writ TO the city
s.ourt OF that municipality The court
IA determining whether said ordin-
ance was In conflict with the consti-
tuition or laws OF the United States
III order TO determine its iurIsdic-
tion. said:
sThe principal stress OF the argu-
mcrt for the pIaintiff In error pro
ceeded on the ordinance Of IT'S. The
acf Of 1906 tchap. $50 having proyid-
ed. shat from aud after the estab-
lishmeht OF the government OF the
Orleans Territory. the inhabitants OF
the same should be entitled to en-
10Y all the rights. privileges. and ad-
Tantages secured by aid ordinance,
Nnd then enjoyed by the people OF
The Mississippi Territory II was also
~>a4 fse frame Of government. with
notifications.
IN the ordinance, there are terms
of canaact declared 70 be thereby es-
tth1Ished between the original states.
nm xnr lsropir uf line states after
wards 10 be formed northwest al the