Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-03-18
ENTIRE DAY ON
INANDAMUS WRIT
LEGAL TALENT OF TULSA TAKES
uP ELECTION SQUARBLE.
HEARING CONTINUES today
Attorneys for Board Hold That Char
ter Prevail, over later legislative
EnuCtmcnts.

Enuctmcnts.
Some breezy arguments were pre-
scented before Judge J.. NJ Poe IN
The district court yesterday afternoon
D. relative to the hearing of the man-
inmus suit brought against the coun-
ty election board by Republicans to
ave the board accept and file tho
names of candidates for the primary
election, The principle issue between
the litisauts is whether It will bo
cgal 10 hold a city election In Tulsa
this spring
Tulsa's most brilliant legal talent
Is arrayed on both sides OF the case,
ana II now appears that there VIII be
a bitter war of words waged by the
representatives of both factions be-
'ore final decision Is reached. Tho
entire day yesterday was taken up
in discussing the ISSUE and up until
a late hour yesterday evening attor-
neys were dolvlng into citations from
decisions handed down by tho SUI
preme court In other state. Court ad-
tOurned at o'clock yesterday even-
ng to hear further argument from
attorneys representing the respondent
when court convenes this morning.
Tho faction contcndng that the
provisions Of tho Tulsa charter are
null In view of the fact that proy-
ions have been made by the state law
Cor "a city election are represented
by Attorneys A. j. Biddlson and j.
j. Henderson. city Attorney Ramsey
land ATTORNEY IL. b. Martin are con-
tending for the respondents. only In
fun was that side of the case In which
contention Is made for a city election
heard yesterday while In part the
respondent offered argument against
through Attorney ii B. Martin.
1t is contended by the plaintiff in
the mandamus proceedings that the
charter of "A city under the commission
form of government is subserylent to
the general laws of state. They fur
ther argue that the charter after ac-
Ceptance by the attorney general. can
he amended by the Legislature to c,
form with the statutes governing the
state as whole. There IL, however.
I some question as 10 whether tho legIs-
, lature has the right to amend or null
lify n charter after II has beer
, cepted and signed by the governor.
In this case the city charter of Tul-
sa providing as II does for city cleo
ton In the year 1912, viii stand until
further action Is taken by the legs-
: lature to amend this provision.
Attorney II. b. Martin. I'm his
gument for the respondent said:
why has the state granted n char
ter to this municipality with provis-
ions for city election as they have
heretofore been held II its provisions
| conflict with the state laws and must
be governed by the state constitution.
Z AS long as the legislature has
| mitted the city to have the power OF
p commission government. special pro-
visions enacted after the charter has
| been granted have no effect"
In referring 10 tho argument OF A.
j Biddison for the plaintiff, Attor-
new Martin said:
/ "The counsel has lngeniously ar
| gued that Tulsa Is not n city OF the
first class, therefore laws governing
cities OF the first class would not APP
ply In this instance. The legislature
accepted this construction OF our
: charter that pertains purely to local
matters, and has conceded that It has
no power over the provision govern
] Ing when the city shall hold an cleo
/ ton"
; In nut shell, the attorneys for the
respondent will contend throughout
p the argument that when a charter is
codlfled and submitted, receiving the
approval Of the attorney general and
the signature Of the governor and
found not In conflict with the state
constitution, that It's provisions gov
trn the city Ind is not in conflict with
o legislation enacted thereafter. Tho
charter for city of Tulsa was grant,
ed before action was taken In the leg
lsature providing for fixed date at
which time city elections should be
held over tho state Now the question
remains to be answered whether the
provisions since made by the legisla-
ture will govern the municipality.
A surprise was sprung by Attorney
". r.. Ramsey when no moved that
the action brought by Democratic can
dldates against the county election
board In tho superior court be quash-
ed The mandamus proceeding be-
fore Judge Breckenridge was TO have
! been given q hearing tomorrow, but
win now be delayed until attorneys
can prepare an original copy of the
+, writ The grounds upon which the
motion Of Attorney r. Ramsey
was upheld was that the writ filed
with Judge Breckenridge was not tho
original copy
The action before Judge Brecken-
ridge was brought by John II. Mil
Ter, Democratic candidate for mayor,
and other Democratic candidates for
domination,