The Oklahoma miner. [volume] (Krebs, Okla.) 1912-192?, 1913-08-07
JUDGE WILLIAMS HOLDS STAT
UTE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
AGREES WITH ENABLING ACT
Action Of Attorneys Taken to Mean
Case viii Go Higher-Second
Sustaining Decision
On This Law.

so-called grandfather clause" was
upheld by the state supreme court for
the second time in an opinion handed
down in the case Of Theodore Coheld
against election officers in Logan
county. The case, Cofeld against
Thomas Farrell, l.. f. Leach and T.
Elder, election officers, was appealed
from the district court of Logan coun-
ty. The decision of that court was
affirmed by the supreme court In
the opinion Of the supreme court, pre-
pared by Justice Williams, the section
of the constitution containing the
grandfather clause is not in violation
of either the fourteenth or fifteenth
amendments to the federal const-
tuition or of the enabling act. These
were the principal questions presented
to the court for consideration in this
case.
The plaintiff, Cofeld sued the cleo
tion officers for damages alleging that
he was deprived Of the right to vote
in the general election held on No
vember s, 1910. He alleges that he
was and has been for many years a
resident of the precinct in which the
election officers held the election;
that he was born in the United States;
that he was siXty-siX years of age;
that he had all the qualifications en-
titling him 10 vote under the consti-
tuition of the state; that prior to the
emancipation proclamation he was a
slave, and by reason of that procla-
nation he was emancipated that he
is a member of the negro race, and
that he is unable to read and write
any section of the constitution of Okla
homa; that he was not on January l,
1866, or any time prior thereto, en-
titled to vote at an election under
any form of government, and that he
is not lineal descendant of any per
son who was entitled to vote He
further alleges that he had never re.
sided in any foreign country.
In the case before the Logan coun-
ty court, the defendants, the election /
officers, interpOsed a demurrer to the .
petition and the same was sustained. .
The plaintiff declined TO plead fur |
ther. Judgment was rendered in IA .
vor Of the election officers The opin- /
ion Of the supreme court states that I
the questions TO be decided in the I
case were as to whether the grand
father clause of the constitution is in I
conflict with the fourteenth or IF .
teenth amendment to the federal con- /
stitution or with the enabling act, I'M 1
der which the state of Oklahoma was
erected. The court has held on a
previous occasion, and also the Grim
Inal court of appeals, that the section
was not in conflict with the two
to the federal constitu-
tion referred to above.
The final termination of the case
in the oklahoma supreme court does
not end the case as attorneys for Co
field served notice that the case will |.
be appealed TO the supreme court Of
the United States 4 case wherein the
clause is attacked is now pending be-
fore the highest court in the land, but
is different from the Cofeld case in
that it is criminal case, while the
other is a civil suit.
The opinion prepared by Justice
Williams is very elaborate In It he
gives a history of the right of suf-
frage Of the various states at the
adoption of the federal constitution.
The number of colcred inhabitants in
he various states from 1890 TO 1860.
and history Of slavery in the world.
The opinion states that If the plain
in was entitled 10 vote under any
'rganized form of government prior
o January l, 1866, or II any Of his
ancestors, 20 the remotest degree,
we're entitled 20 vote, even though /
lnder an organized form Of govern. ,
nent existing in Africa, prior 10 the
ime his ancestors may have been
transported TO the american shores,
e is entitled 10 vote under the .,rand.
ather clause Of the constitution, il he
possesses the other required qualif.
ations, That the suffrage amend
aent 10 the constitution, II il does
ot violate the fft,enth amendment,
avs the court, is not void on account
I said provisions OF the enabling act, !
as been upconuoverubly settled. In ]
ddition, the opinion reads. the people 4
{ this state by Section ! OF Article . I
( the constitution. have specifically @
eserved the right 20 alter or reform r
aid constitution, !