The Beaver herald. [volume] (Beaver, O.T. [Okla.]) 1895-1923, 1914-01-29
CaHitaI Question Settled.

" Nolibui ouliuilB w OhldhOuld Dlty
was removed when the supreme court
by unanimous opinion, held that the
referendum petitions which sought to
refere the $3.50 600 capitol appropriation
bill to the people were void, for the
reason that the petitions were not filed
with the secretary Of state within nine.
ty days after final adjournment Of the
legislature.
The court holds that the house Of
representatives was adj ourned sine die
on June 30, 1913, aud the senate on
July l; that neither came to final
end on July 9Th ; that the referendum
petitions fled on October 2, seeking to
refer the capitol bill TO the people were
not filsd within the ninety days time
as required by law.
As the same points OF law are in
volved in the new election law refer
endum case as in the capitol case,
practically the same opinion was hand
ed down for both, the court holding in
the election case that the referendum
petitions which sought to refer the first
five sections Of the new election law to
the people were void tor the reason
that they were not filed with the Sec
retary of state within the time re-
quired by the constitution.
This decision of the states highest
court deals a severe blow to two move
ments to refer two OF the most i'm
portant laws passed by the Fourth leg
islaturs. In declaring the petitions
void and thereby allowing the two
Jaws to go into effect, the court by its
decision invalidates the general rev.
enue bill and several other measures
passed by the recent legislature.
The revenue bill was passed on the
day before final adjournment and is
now invalid for the reason that the
constitution requires all revenue bills
to be passed five days before a finaI
end OF the legislature. A number OF
bills passed at the close OF the session
and which were not approved or We
toed by the governor within fifteen
dsys after final adjournment are, un-
der the courts decision, invalid
The opinion in the capitol and cleo
tion law cases was written by Special
Justice Stillwell H. Russell or Ard.
more, Other members of the special
court which heard the cases and who
concurred in the opinion, were Chief
Justice Hayes, Justices Turner and
Loofbourrow and Special Justice Rob
ertson, member OF the state supreme
court commission, Division No. l.
In declaring the petitions in the
capital case void, the supreme court
by this decisive action makes available
Immediately approximately s5OO,0OC
which was appropriated by the legis-
lature for the purpose of erecting :
capitol in Oklahoma City. The bill
provides an Appropriation of $250,0OC
to be raised by direct taxation, bu
this amount will not be available IN
till 1915. Property in the state viii
be taxed in the year 1915 to meet thi
appropriation. The $500 appropri
alton is the only money which the bill
provides shall be raised through taxa
tion. and in return for this the stat,
has received $50 acres Of valuable liant
situated within two miles of the prin
cipal business section OF the city. o
the $3.50 900, Oklahoma City has turn
ed over to the state, 100000 in actua
cash, and has sufficient guarantee tha
the remainder of the unpaid rents tha
was promised to be paid will be met
This unpaid rent is only smaI
amount, and the state stands to los
nothing, as the rents were guarantee
by responsible business men in tn
metropolis. The remainder of the ar
propriation is made up of small sun
from practically every department {
state, and are known as "dead funds,
or small amounts of appropriation
which were not used for the specif
purposes for which they were made.
With the final decision of the 81
preme court, every known obstacle
the way of building the capitol hi
4 been removed. 1t is the consensus
opinion among lawyers that an appe
from the Judgment of the court
this capitol case can not be taken
the supreme court of the United Stat
for the reason that no provision OF Il
federal constitution is involved. A
tempts to secure temporary injunctio
against enforcement of the laws cou
be made, but as they could not be e
tertained by courts of the state, und
the decision of the highest state cou
1t is considered unlikely that such pr
cedure would be instituted.
Briefly stated, the syllabus OF t
opinion in the capitol case is as f