Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-09-10
START ARGUING
THE BOOK CASES
SUPREME COURT HEARS lRGU-
MENIS N SCHOOL BOOK
MATTER.
BOARD removal QUESTION
The Argument Hinges Principally on
Whether or Not Governor Had
Right to Remove Board

OKLAHOMA CITY, okla, Sept o.
Especial Arguments were heard
Tuesday by the supreme court in the
text book cases Of Wikoff, ct al,
against Wheeler Il CO., wherein the
validity of the text book adoptions of
1912 Is to be tested. The question
as to whether the governor had au-
thority to remove certain members of
the state board Of education is the
important question being brought out
ln the case by the attorneys
Attorney General West occupied
the attention of the court up to noon
with arguments in support of the
governors actions. The sta tcs attor-
ney was followed by Judge W. A
Lcdbctter, representing Wheeler ana
other attorneys. Each side was given
two hours for argument.
The attorney general contcnded
that If the governor had the power 10
to appoint the board of education,
such power came from an old terri
torial statute II ne had the power
to appoint, he said, he had the power
To remove. Tho attorney COntended
that after tho governor removed the
members OF the board, they had no
authority to act.
In any event the attorney general
claimed there was no justification for
an injunction being granted against
the present board, restraining II from
making text book adoptions. In ap-
plying for such injunction, the appli-
cants had no authority he said, To
contemplate or assume that the board
would make adoptiOns or transact any
particular business.
Court Was Crowded.
The supreme courtroom was crowd
ed to It's capacity during the morning
session Of the court, the audience be
ing made up largely Cf representa-
tives of the various book companies.
In closing his argument. Attorney
General West raised another import
ant point in the case claiming that
the members of the board Of educa-
ton part Of whom were removed by
the governor, were defacto officers
and not de jure officers Of the state.
Holding this TO be true, the attorney
general contended that they could be
moved any time, any hour, by the
governor. The members Of the board
had been nominated by the governor
but they had not been confirmed by
the state senate as required by law.
Judge c. b. Stuart, in support Of the
governor, devoted most of his argu-
ment 10 substantiation OF this con-
tcntiOn. Judge Stuart compared the
power Of the governor of oklahoma,
insofar as Withdrawing nominations
or removing members Of the board of
education, to the power frequently
exercised by the president of tho
United States in Withdrawing pomina-
tiOns after having been submitted To
the United States senate. He said
that instances where nam's have been
withdrawn by the president have oc-
ourrt lu practically every admins
tration in the history of the governe
ment The attorney mentioned the
Lon Frame case, on which the su-
prcmc court recently gave decision,
but claimed the question decided
therein was different from the present
cuse. In that Frame was appointed to
20 vacancy caused by resignation of
he initial appoiutee whose nomina-
non had previously been confirmed
by the senate I'm that case the court
held that confirmation Of Frames
nomination was not necessary The
distinction in the two questions, In
Judge SWarts judgment was that
the nomination q members Of the
board of education. the initial ap-
poIutces. had not received coufirma-
ton from the senate. and that until
the nominations had been confirmed.
the governor had the right to with
draw any or an of them and make
rev nominations.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Judge w.
A. Lcdbcttcr. rcpressnting Wheeler Il
Co.,. began his argument in the case.