The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1914-02-18
ATTORNEY T|BBETTs SERVES
NOTICE THAT He WILL APPEAL
Holds THAT Clerk Durham Was
Not Justified in Eliminating
Names on Petition

Judge Huston, after carefully exam
lining the evidence, has decided thai
there is no just reason why the citi-
zen voters of Guthrie should not have
call the present city commissioners
Nissley and Carter.
In lengthy verbal decision rem
dered this morning the Judge directs
the city clerk to Immediately pre-
pare the call and present it to the city
commission.
Among other things. Judge Huston
said: ANY citizen OF Guthrie whose
name is on any registration book OF
the city, no matter if he now lives in
a different ward from which he reg
fstered, is entitled to the right of en-
franchisement and any effort to de
prive him of that right is an attempt
to thwart the will Of the people.
The decision given by the able iur-
ist is clear and to the point. There is
no mistaking the language. In sub
stance the decision is given below
by TIME COURT: This is an appli-
cation on the part of certain eiti~
zens who have signed a recall peti
tN n
count certain names upon the recall
petition and in the event that the en-
tire number of petitioners are equal
to thirty i've per cent Of the Not'
cast at the last eleetion for mayo
then, that the clerk be required
certify the suflicieney OF such Getitioh
to the board of commissioners. SeV
eral objections are made here again.
the allowing OF the writ First, thai
the court has no jurisdiction TO contrei
the action of the clerk. Second, tha
the petitions are insufficient III form
and do not contain such charge
uEdItlSt illt tllihti9 7pbrrht ''
called as would warrant such a pro
ceeding. Third that the clerk has
already counted all the legal sigma
lures upon the petition.
AS to the first objection that the
court has no jurisdiction to control
the action of the city clerk, it is true
that the courts will not seek to con
troll bv mandate the action of those
officers clothed with discretionary
powers but it is not discretionary
with the clerk as to whether he shall
count or not count the names upon 3
recall petition. 1t is his duty to count
all names that are legally thereon.
And il he omits to count them either
through a mistake or of misconcep-
ton Of the law the court will require
him to correct the mistake and to pro
ceed according to the law.
AS to the sufficiency Of the chars-
es, have heretofore held that this Is
purely a political matter, that there
is nothing in the statute defining what.
the charges shall be and that it IS
purely question for the voters at
the polls to determine whether the
charges are sufficient in form or in
substance or whether they are true
or not. and | see no reason for chang
ing my formed holding.
The evidence in the case shows
number of names were stricken FROM
the petition that were on the reg
istration books of the ward from
which the petitioner signed. These.
were conceded by all parties to be le-
gal signers and they appear to have
been omitted by mistake. The names
of all the petitioners that did not a'p
near upon the registration books OF
the particular precinct from when
they signed we're stricken from the
petition by the clerk, upon the theory
that they we're not legal petitioners.
think that according to the interpre-
tation of all the laws governing the
matter of registration and the partic-
ular manner of voting in cities of the
first class. that these names should
fcontinued on Page 6 Col. y