The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-05-26


that perfect liberation of religious
sentiment should be secured: that
polygamy or plural marriages should
/ ne forever prohibited, etc, that school
land leases should have certain \. ef
erence rights in the purchase of such
lands, and in regard to many mat
ters. too numerous TO mention here,
he constitutional convention. on be-
hall OF the people Of the state, did
bind the people OF this state, and il
might as we'll be said that all OF the
ether provisions. some of which were
mentioned in the constitution and
some OF which were not set forth
therein in specific language, are not
l'nding upon the people OF the state,
as il mAy be said that the provision
relating TO the location of the state
capital is not binding. AS an Illus
{. alton: Suppose that bill was
initiated TO permit the people to prac
tee polygamy in the state Of Oklaho-
ma Can il be said, in view of the
yroyisions OF the Enabling Act. that
a Law of that character would be OF
aoy validity If adopted al an election
neld for the purpose OF voting upon
that question? And yet the same right
exists upon the part OF the people OF
oklahoma TO pass q law OF that char
acier as exists In the case under con-
sidera.ion. o.. suppose a law be
passed denying the land lessees pref.
erence rights. The constitution OF
the state does not. in terms, prohibit
rulygamous mar iages, or provide for
preference right to the lessees, but
the right OF the state 10 adopt laws
OF that character is prohibited by the
conditions OF the Enabling Act, under
j. nhich we became a state, and certain
~ no lawye- OF repute can be found
Who will asssr. that the state of Ok.
laboma has the right to adopt law
permitting p0lygamous marriages
within the boundaries of our state or
uf denying the preference rights as
lived in the Enabling Act.
Gompacts Are Held Sacred
There are large number Of cases
which deal directly with questions
growing oat Of compacts of this char
acter and we cali attention TO a few
et such cases and their holdings up
on this question.
spooner VS.. Mcconnell, l Mclean,
5a7, Fed. Cases No l3,245. This case
teals with the question involved in
he Enabling Act of the state of Ohio.
1T is a well established principle,
that no political change in . govern
ment. annuls compact made with
another sovereign power or with in
dividuals The compact is protected
10y that sacred regard for plighted
faith, which should be cherished alike
by individuals and organized commu'
n,ties. A disregard of this great prin-
Ciple would reject all the tights and
a ivantages of civilization and throw
rs back on the age OF vandalism.
a And this compact so formed could
only be rescinded. by the common
assent OF those who were parties TO
II. When application was made to
congress by the people to an-
thorize the call of n convention TO
TORN a constitution, notifications OF
&c rtain provisions of the compact
we're proposed, some Of which were
embodied in the constitution subse-
onently formed, and others of them,
after various alterations were also
Inserted.
The state has been admitted into
the Union on an equal footing with
tne original states. And yet the state
Is bouna by compact not 10 tax the
Iands of the Uniten States. not until
the expiration of five years after
they shall have been sold The pow
CT 10 tax .s an incident to sovereign
Is. Does this exemption take away
or lessen this power? II il does, In
lie sense contended. then the state or
ohio was rot admitted into the Union,
with the same powers of sovereignty
as the original states This conse-
cuence Is not ohviated by the fact
tiat this was a rest iction imposed,
18th the consent of the state, for an
equivalent. II II be an abridgment oil
the sovereign power OF the state. the
oaiection stands In its full force The
compact not TO tax was the voluntary
act of the people OF the state
And this exemption from taxation Is
a restriction on the exercises OF the
sovereign power
III the people Of a state, in their
sovereign capacity, enter into com
ract either from motives OF sound
policy or for a valuable consideration
Iaid, that certain lands within the
state shall be exempt from taxation,
or that certain navigahle rivers shall
remain unobstructed, the sovereignty
II the state Is no more affected, than
il is BY every act OF Incorporation
where exclusive privileges are given
10 a company or an indiyidcal Ger
Tain objects on which the sovelelsn
power may act are. by its own con-
sent. withdrawn from its action; nut
this does rot divest the state of any
attribute OF its sovereignty.
But II is earnestly contended that
the rights asserted by the complain
mt are wholly incompatible with the
sovereignty OF the state, and with the
provision that the state was admitted
na an enmal footing with the original
states. Does this provision mean
mat the new state shall exercise the
same powers and in the same modes
as are exercised by any other stateg
Now this cannot be the tue con
gtruction Of the provision, for there
cannot be found. perhaps, amy two
states In the Union, whose leglsla'
tive, judicial and executive powers
are in every respect alike. II the
argument be sound that thete Is no
equal footing short Of exact equality
t ftgr roenoct then the states are