The Liberal democrat. [volume] (Liberal, Kan.) 1911-1924, 1914-01-02
NEWS OF THE STATE CAPITAL
Capitol Case Considered.

With brilliant array OF counsel
representing the four parties direct
ly concerned and In the presence Of
a crowded court room, the state SUI
preme court heard arguments in the
capitol appropriation and election law
referendum cases which have been
pending before the high court for sew
eral weeks. Arguments presented by
the various attorneys followed those
which were written in the briefs filed
last week with the court. The status
OF the situation is briefly:
The extraordinary session OF the
fourth legislature passed a bill ap-
propriating certain monies to be used
in erecting the capitol in Oklahoma
City. The bill was to become effec-
tive ninety days after final adjourn
ment, or October 3. Petitions were
circulated and signed to have the
bill referred to the people at the gen.
eral election on November 8, 1914.
These petitions were filed with the
secretary of state early in October,
which action suspended operation
OF the measures until the referendum
petition was acted upon.
Likewise, the legislature passed a
new election law. Petitions were cir
culated and filed with the secretary
OF state to have the first sections Of
the measure submitted to the people
at the next general election. Secre-
tary of State Harrison declined to
take evidence in the cases, but arbi-
trarily overruled all objections to
both petitions. From such action Of
the secretary, the two cases were
appealed to the supreme court. The
court appointed Attorney ]. B. Dud-
ley of Norman as referee to take evil
dence, in the two causes. This he
did two weeks ago, and filed his re-
port, which 1t now in possession Of
the court.
Arguing on Adjournment.
Whether the legislature adjourned
on July 1 or July is apparently
the most important question brought
out in the cases by the attorneys. II
the two houses adjourned on July 1
the referendum petitions were not
filed with the secretary of state
within the time required by law, and
therefore are void. Furthermore the
revenue bill passed on June 30 Is not
a law for the reason that it was not
passed five days before final adjourn
ment as required by law. The legis-
lature passed resolution naming
July as the date for final adjorun-
ment, and authorized the speaker of
the house and the president pro tenn
pore of the senate to bring the ses-
sion to an end sine die. This was
done in order that the revenue law
might become regularly passed five
days before final adjournment.
Referee Dudley reported that If the
Legislature had the authority to pass
the resolution delegating the authori-
ty to the presiding officers, that the
two houses adjourned July g.; if not
that they adjourned on July /. Thus
the referee placed before the supreme
court the question of when the legis-
lature adjourned.
Judge C. B. Ames opened argu-
ments in behalf of Oklahoma City
as against the capitol referendum pc.
titions. He was followed by Judge A.
C. Cruce, H. L. Stuart and E. G. Nc
Adams For the defendants, the pc
titions in the election law case, Judge
H. L. Fogg, of Ell Reno made the
opening argument. Norman Haskell
closed for Oklahoma City. Other
speakers for the defendants are ]. R.
Bennett of Ell Reno, in the election
case, and Will R. Chapbell and Frank
Dale of Guthrie, in the capitol case.