The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-28

XIV EiAINNhNN SpiHUfnlAWN ~ ~ y
threatened lnpHSlon ot the right
III tie badplA N determine what
disposition shall be 1iadb bf the
public funds exacted from them
by the extraordinary power OF tax
alton. Now, every usc of such
funds M violation Of the provl.
sions of The constitution or organ
" Ian niiist uHceAsNfily he of tllis
character ifhc legislature II btii
an instrumenrality appointed BY
the state to exercise part Of its
sovereign powers. In that capae-
ity II holds tbs pitbllc funds in
trust ior the people lcxcAbt %
limited by the constitution, its
action within is legitimate sphere
IL the action Of the people but
when II undertakes to apply such
funds in a manner or at = place
prohibited by the organic law, Il
Is not only exercising q power
expressly withheld. but violating
It's ltiistl and court Of equity
VIII interfere III tho suit Of the
sovereign power to nrbytni ~ ra-
strain such an application with.
out being required to show any
other injury II Is enough that
the threatened disposition is in
violation Of the will OF the beo-
pie, as expressed III the supreme
law OF the land sf The ex-
pehdlttrh Of public money at
place prohibited h7 the constitu
tion Is misapplcatiol tilotef,
for the simple and very satisfac
tory reason that II Is against the
declared will Of the people; and 4
the location of a public institu-
tion, within the meaning ul that
term as used III tlib constitution
is not in any sense d legislative
question, but has been determined
by the people themselves. A suf-
ficlent injury, therefore, TO enable
the state In its sovereign capac
ity to call upon q court OF equity
for relief Is shown whenever II
Is made TO appear that public
funds are about TO be applied to
q use, for q purpose, Oi o. y place
prohibited by the constitution
We conclude, therefore, that the
court has Jurisdiction, and the
only remaining question ~ wheth-
er the act OF tll elogislature an.
thorlzlng the constitution Of an
insane asylum IN eastern Oregon
Is IN violation Of the provisions
Of the constitution.
See also State ex rel. Taylor vs.
Lord, % Or. 49S, 81 L. Il. A. 90 81
i73; State ex rel VS.. Lawrence
supra; llornoday. Of al, VI. State. es
rel, supra; Russell, OF al, vs. Tate
ct al., 81 Ark, J4i, z l., Il. a. %. 50
100.
In Fletcher VS.. futile, I51 ILL., 81, \
Is said:
80 wherever the established
distinctions between equitable
and common law jurisdiction are
observed. : courts of equity
have no authority or jurisdiction
to interpose for the protection OF
rights which are merely political,
and where no civil or property
right Is involved
Only three kinds of actions may be
had In this jurisdiction, to-wlt, (1l
civil action, % crlminol action, t3l
special proceeding, the distinction be
tween chancery and lew jurisdictions
never having obtained in this state.
In State OK rel. Haskell, Governor
vs.. Huston, Judge, ct AL, supra, 1t Is
said;
The writ of quo warrantO being
abolished and remedies hereto
fore obtaInable in those forms
being now made Obtainable by
civil action the action stands
on the same footirg IN the courts
rs any other, and Is commenced
and prosecuted IA the same way.
and no exception to the law as
laid down In section GsGI is there
by created.
In Newhouse y Alexander, not ye
officially repo tod. in an opinion de
llyered BY MIR. Justice Turner, It j.
said
i Is first contended by New
gioGse that Che court was without
jurisdiction to try this cause Ter
The reuson That the writ of quo
warranto aud proceedings BY IN
formation in the nature 0t uuo
war auto abolished by Wilson'S
Rev. and Ann stat Of Okla,
See. iSiS. fesigedi Wy secs. 2
and 10 OF art. 7 of the ccAstitu-
don, the ancient writ Of quo wid-
ranto which makes It the sole
remedy of A sxander In this cause
If such Is the effect Of said pro
visions when construed together
then Alexander Is without rem
cdy for the reasons that the func
tions OF the ancient writ were linn
ited TO matters publci iurig and
the same iwas not available for
the trial of purely private rights
23 Am = Eng. Eucy. Of law 1873
There Is no corflict In said pro
vision and nothing In this cufl-
teniion Wu take II that the con
stitution convention by providing
In Art. VII, sec. 2. of the c0usti-
tuition that the snpGene court