Bisbee daily review., 1911-05-10

Of state. ct sl vs. Haskell ct al. heard by the supreme court of Okla hcma November l5. 1910. the court held that congress had no right to arbitrarily fN the capital Of the new state.
 The OkllECula enabling act in part provides. "The capital of said state shall temporarily bo at the city of Guthrie in the present territory of Oklahoma and shall not be changed therefrom previous to anno donini nineteen hundred and thirteen.
 The syllabus of the Oklahoma SUI preme court decision is as follows:
 Since congress has. no power to admit a state into the union except on an equal footing with the orie- inai states in accordance with the rights. powers and duties defined by the constitution. the admlssiOn of Oklahoma fixed her status and that Of her people as that acquired by the other states of the federal union under the constitution. anything in the enabling act to the contrary not Withstanding and conferred on such state the exclusive power to enact and repeal it's own laws, provided the samo enacted be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States"
 In deciding the issue, Justice Turner. all justices cOncurring. said as follows:
 Congress Exceeded Powers.
 If congress intended by the re- quiring that said provision bo adopt ed by ordinance irrevocable to fas ten upon this state an irrepealable law, congress exceeds it's powers. The idea thae. this state is admitted into the union thus debarred. while another state is admitted with the privilege Of repealing it's law to con form to the wishes of its people. is so repugnant to equality under the constitution that we cannot believe congress intended it. But if it did. and by said act and ordinance ire yocable. an attempt was made to fasten upon the state law ire pealable before 1913, such an at tempt is intellectual
 But assuming that by adopting. by ordinance irrevocable, that part of the enabling act fixing the capital at Guthrie until 1913 the same be came and is a part of the compact or contract admitting the state into the union and was imposed upon the state by congress as a condition precedent to it's admission, as is contended in that compact, is such binding on the state to the extent that the state is without power 10 change it? We think not, for the req
 Al ha thus surrender nor the federal gov ernment the power to accept a sur render of municipal right of soyer- eighty thus attempted to be surren- dered as condition precedent to admission into the union, and hence such surrender would be void. Noid for the reason that as the United States government is one Of dele gated powers. and as nowhere has the constitution vested in congress power to wrest from the people or a proposed state a surrender or a portion of their powers purely polit- ical involving no property right, or a condition precedent to their admlS- sion as q state. it is safe 10 say that no such power exists and not existing. cannot be enforced. The right to remove the capital Of state pursuant to an act of the law making power Of the state is a pc Iitical right, and it's exercise the exercise of political or governmental power, and 2 municipal right. of soy ereigntv which the state is power less to rartcv away, by act or other wise"
 stste Has all State Powers.
 In United States ex-rel. Friedman of al vs. the United States Express company CD. e. 1s0 Fed. 10o6, the corrs said; It must therefore be conceded that. when Oklahoma was adruted under the federal consti- tuition into the union as a state, the