Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1913-03-20
Attorneys for Oldham and Futrell Cite Similar
 Contested Gases.
DECISION ON MONDAY
Judges Frequent. Interrupt Lawyers 10 tsh Qnestions-C Chambrr
 Crowded Ky Spectators.

Little Rock. March 19. 9.-Argumrnts Ill the contest of Acting GOV. w. k Oldham and President Pro Tem H. M Futrell of the senate. took place in the supreme court this morning, in which the constitution of the state. from 1856 to the present time, was analyZcd very closely by both sides.
 Frequently members Of the supreme court would ask questions of the at torneys. mostly upon the intention of the framers of the constitution in put ting anything in the articles regard ing the selection of president of the senate at it's close
 The argument was much upon the question of whether Ine constitution referred to the office of Governor, or to the person occupying that office. and that of president of the senate.
 J. Merrick Moore, of the law firm of gument for the appellant, J. M. Fut- rell, after each side had been given an hour in which to make it's argument. He contended that the person occupy ing the office of governor or presi- dent of the senate was not intended by the framers of the constitution and that the office of governor did not de- volve and accrue to the president of the senate, but the emoluments and duties of the office. He stated the constitution was drawn by learned attorneys, who made this distinction so plain it's meaning could not be shaded, and it was evident they clear ly had in mind the difference between the office and emoluments.
 Under Section IA, Article of the constitution, Attorney Moore stated it would be msdiscription to refer to call the acting governor governor if he was president of the senate. He said if the president of the senate was governor to serve permanently, the constitution would not have spoken of vacancy occurring in the office and providing for special election to fill it. He cited New Jersey and Colorado cases to bear out his contentious.
 Another point made by Attorney Moore was the language of the con- stitution in speaking of the absence of the governor from the state, being the same as for resignation, perman- ent disability or death of the gover- nor. He referred to the absence of Governor Donaghey from the state and Senator w. c. Rodgers, who was president pro tenn of the senate, serv- ing during his absence, but did not claim to be governor permanently. The attorney stated the president pro tenn had as much right to hold office permanently then as now, for the lab sence" of the governor from state was especially provided in connection with the resignation In that case, he argued, the district represented by Senator Rodgers, was without a sena tor and was not legally represented during the balance of his term.
 Are you going to say the cOnsti tuition is true in one case, and not in the other, when the wording is the same, and the same importance is giv en to one as to the other?' asked the attorney in concluding his argument.
 Associate Justice Wood asked in case the legislature had been called in special session when Gov. Dona- ghey was out of the state, who would serve as president of the senate, the regular president, or the president pro tenn.
 J. F. Loughborough, of the law firm of Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell and Loughborough, followed for the ap- police. He took the view of the word ing of the constitution, that the per son occupying the office of governor and president of the senate, was meant by those framing the constitu- tion, for the reason that the office could not die, resign or leave the state. He argued that the president of the senate, succeeding to the of- flee of governor, should remain there until the disabilities of the governor wer removed, or until a governor had been regularly elected by the people,