Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-07-01

Very respectfully,
(Signed) CHAS. WEST,
Attorney General
Charter government for Oklahoma
city.
December 6, 1910. Honorable War
rem X Snyder, oklahoma City
oklahoma.
Dear Sir Receipt is acknowledged
Of your letter Of November 30, In
which you state that you are a mem
Der Of the board of freeholders, elect
ed on November 6, to frame char
ter for the government of the city
Of Oklahoma City; and you inquire
whether such board has the right to
make provision in the charter for
the regulation Of the affairs of the
school district in which the city is
located. You also inquire concern
ing the effect of the provisions of an
act approved March 2S, 1910, chap
ter 113 of the 1910 session laws,
known as the stafford Bills
Some phases Of the question con-
tanned in your letter were considered
by the Supreme Court Of oklahoma
in the case of the City Of Ardmore,
ct al VS.. state eX rel Rest, 1870 Pacific
5G5, and the first paragraph of the
bwIabus partially answers your ques-
tons 1t is as follows
"The free public school system
which the Legislature is directed to
establish by Article Il Of the Con-
stituion, is a matter Of general state
concern, and not a municipal affair."
In the body Of the opinion the
court, quoting from the decision in
the case Of Greenan ct al vs.. Carson
ct nj, 1O7 Pacific 925, adds:
"It was the policy of the trainers
of the Constitution and the people
when they adopted IT, to separate
these two departments Of govern
mont. Under the laws i'm force in
the Territory of oklahoma. They
also were continued and put in
force in the state, the duties of the
officers OF cities of the. first-c
are confined TO the care manage
nent and control of the city and its
finances matters pertaining to edu-
cation are entrusted to another cor
| porate body"
Further in the opinion the court,
referring to the governmental duty
| to provide for and maintain a sys-
TEN OF public instruction, said
THAT II was not the intention Of
| the trainers of the Constitution to
ntrust this important function Of
government to a minor political sub
division of the state, is quite APP
parent from casual examination of
the provisions Of that instrument
pertaining to that subject
II will be seen that all the COM
n,ands Of the Constitution with refer
ence to education are addressed to
the Legislature. 1t would hardly be
contended thai the power thus CON
ferred on the Legislature could be
delegated by It to the legislative body
Of a city, and it is clear that any
attempt to do so would be of no
effect
The court in the Ardmore case,
supra, quoted from the case of Ken
nedy vs.. Miller, 80 Pac. 35S, as fol-
lows:
THE Constitution has authorized
the city to frame this charter for
It's own government, and this linn
uation implies that It's authority is
restricted to its own officers and
the inhabitants within this territory
and that It tcannot extend the au-
thorlty Of It's officers to matters out
side of It's territory or to subjects
that have been placed by the Con-
slitution exclusively within the con-
trol of the Legislature or that have
|hccn conffided by the Legislature ia
the management Of other officials"
It will be noted that Section of
Article Is Of the oklahoma Consti-
tuition confers power on cities to
frame o "charter for its own gov
eminent" only, and no grant OF
power is given to regulate the affair.
, Of the school district in which the
city is located.
when the law referred to as the
stafford Bills" was presented &c
the governor for his signature, hC
: transmitted It to this office with Q
J request for an opinion rs to its con
stitutionality. ! enclose herewith
! copy Of the opinion given on tina
occasion. The office has no lncli
nation to recede from It's position
then taken with reference to tina
law.
on August 81, 1910. this office, II
an opinion to the governor on thu
validity OF the charter for the gov
lernment Of the city Of Duncan. held