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

er Of taxation, FOR that would be sub
stantially abdlcation All that has
been determined thus far is, that for
consideration IL may, In the exele
else OF a reasonable discretion, and
for the public good, surrender part
OF its powers in this particular.
But the power Of governing is a
trust committed By the people to the
government, no part OF which can be
granted away
and affirmed the Judgment Of custer.
The Conclusion Drawn.
The inevitable conclusion TO be
drawn from this csae is that the state
by charter, contract, compact or 9th
erwise, part for title with any Of its
governmental powers, or powers pure
~ political, or municipal rights OF soy
ereignty, that i'm as much as the same
are held by it IN trust for the people
of the state, they are not the subject
contract and may be withdrawn or
reclaimed at any time by the people
of the state.
Newton ct al. v. Board of Co.
Com'rs Mahonng County, 26 Ohio
state, 61S, was a suit by certain cit
izens and property owners in the
town Of Garfield to enjoin defendants
from removing the county seat from
Garfield to Youngstown The facts
were that the legislature by Act Of
February 10th, 1916, created the
county OF Mahoning and named there
in Garfield as the county seat The
eighth section OF the Act, in eject,
provided that before the same should
be permanently established there the
citizens thereof We're required TO give
bond to the county commissioners in
n certain sum to be applied in erect
| ing public buildings for said coun-
! ty. The citizens OF the town were
also required TO donate a suitable lot
on which TO erect the same ALL
OF which was dOre and accepted by
the board in full satisfaction Of the
| bond and The county seat established
at said town. On April 9th, 1874, the
legislature passed another act pror1d-
| ing for the removal OF the county
seat from Garfield TO Youngstown,
conditioned npon n majority vote OF
the electors of said county, and the
citizens Of Youngstown donating GER
tain lands upon which to erect the
public buildings of the county and
have the same erected thereon, all of
which was done. In support OF the
Injunction 1t was contended by the
citizenG of Garfield that the act OF
1864 Was in the nature Of contract
and that the law Of 1874 impaired itG
obligation and was therefore in con
flict with the constitution of the TN
tied States, but the court held that nc
contract existed and said:
THE power to establish and remove
county seats is one which can not be
parted with by legislative contract. |,
Is not the subject OF contract. No
case or authority is cited by counsel
and 1t is presumed none can be shown
sustaining or enforcing any such con
tract; while several cases are adduc-
ed a Blackf. 20S; Texas 297; II
Ill. 1885, 10 ed. 1850 to show that ii is
a contract which there Is no legisla
tive power to make"
and dismissed the petition.
Quotes Supreme Court of
United States.
This case went to the supreme court
of the United States Go Otto 546-563)
where the court said;
The police power OF the states, and
that with respect to municipal cor
porations, and to many other things
that might be named, are of the same
absolute character. Cooley Const
Linn PIP. 232; The Regents v. Williams
$ Gill. & J. 365. In all these cases
there can be no contract and no ir-
reparable law. because they are'goy
ernmental subjects, and hence within
/ the category before stated
And speaking OF the reasoning IN
support OF the contention or plaintiffs
in error, said:
The same reasoning pusned steE
further in the same direction, would
| involve the same result with respect
10 the seat OF government of state
II 4 state capital were sought to be re-
moved, under the circumstances ol
this case with respect to the county
seat whatever tho public exigencies OF
the force of the public sentiment
which demanded IT. those interested
as are the plaintiffs in error, might
according to their argument, effect
ually forbid and prevent IL; and this
result could be brought about by
means OF bin in equity and per-
petual Injunction. II IS true state
can not be sued without its consent
but this would be a small obstacle in
the way Of the assertion Of so potent a
\ right. Though the state can not he
! sued, It's officers whose acts were II
legal and void, may be. Caborne Y.
Bank, 8 Wheat, 1888; Davis V, Gray.
fsupra)
"A proposition leading to such o
consequence must be unsound. The
parent and the offspring are alike
| Armstrong V. Blackf 200"
and affirmed the Judgment of the low
er court. But again suppossing That
1 by said ordinance a compact was form
ed between the two sovereignties fix
ing the capital at Guthrie until 1913,
compact or contract, inasmucn as II
Involves 10 property rights, is nc.
within the protection of that part OF
The Federal constitution providing, in
effect. that no state shall pass any
law impalrng the obligation of coz
tracts, and for that reason the initiat-
ed bill If otherwise valid, is not in
conflict Herewith and must stand.
lnis was held by the court in the
Stone case in answer to the conten-
tion of the lottery company that the
constitution and legislative act above
referred 10 inIerferred with their yes.