The Oklahoma City times. [volume] (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 1908-1984, 1915-01-26
HOLDS COURTS
NOT ABOLISHED
Supreme Court Decision Puts
Superior Courts into L1-
lstencp Again.
LEGISLATURE WILL NOT ACT
Rejoicing at the Court House
and Judge Garnett Gets
Ready 10 Sit.

superior courts are re ratab.. she'd
Ia all counties ~ the state where
they existed prior 10 l0l" ny virtue
NJ decision Of the stat" supreme
court lpiu, which holds lhaU 'hr act
n the Fourth Legislature approved
March - 1919, abolishIuE superior
court is unconstitutional and void
The opuiou WAS written nl Justice
Summers Hardy, one Of rhr ucw SD
Irene court judges
IN number Of couunr, lur superior
courts were abolished Immediately by
the act ~ 1918. aud iu others innlud.
Ing oklahoma, Mushogee md Tulsa
counties, they were abolished cffec
tive after January /, 1915. The court
today held that thi, act was invalid
because II was based ON the federal
census 0f 1910 without ANY provision
being made Tor the natural growth
or change In population Of the cOun
ties affected. The superior court Of
oklahoma county is among those
which are continued under the ruling
Of the court today.
The Legislature now In session. how.
ever, anticipating the possibility Of
the abolishment act being held iuynl-
Id. has made provision Tor adjustment
" all superior courts except iu Mus
kogee. Tulsa aud Pottawotumir rOun-
ties This bill has passed the house
and II II passes the senate and Il
approved by the governor Il will a..
complish the intention Of the 1913 leg
islature Of abolishing the superior
courts with the exception NJ h the
three counties mentioned
Hatfield Case Appealed.
Although the act of the 1913 legis
lature consolidating certain county Of
flcers was not involved In the case
decided today. the holding u the court
that II was illegal TO take the feder.
al census Of 1910 as an arbitrary basis
may effect the validity OF the consol
ldatiOn act and all similar laws based
upon census enuIneratiOns where not
properly elnstic.
The case upon which the decision Of
the court II made IL an original pro
ceedlng filed In the supreme court BY
Mrs Ina Is. Hatfield seeking a writ
Of prohibition against Charles II. Gar
nett, Judge Of the superior court Oi
Oklahoma county, restraining him from
proceeding In case IN which she wa.
interested. ON the ground that his
court was abolished 10y the 1918 act
Judge Garnett Overruled the conten
tiOn of attorneys for Mr. Hatfield
and took the position that the act was
invalid aud that his court Is still IN
existence
The opinion " the court denies the
application Of Mrs. Hatfield for a
writ of prohibition and holds In sub.
stance as follows: That the legislature
has "A right TO classify the counties OF
the state on a hasis Of population
when the classification Is not arhi
trary and capriciOus aud when IL I'D
piles uniformly TO all counties within
the different classes provided In the
hct; that a classification of counties
OF the state based upon existing M
past conditions, such as the 1910 fed
eral census, which makes no proyI
sion for future changes In populatIon
Is local or class Legislation. II IL ais
held that the act OF 1913 abolIsbInr
superior courts did not comply viii
the provision Of the constitution re
Qulflhs publication Of four week,
notifying the public Of the pronos,sl
legislation and the filing Of proof Of
publication with the secretary of state
and that therefore the act was invalid
Much rejoicing prevailed AT thr
court house today when Il was learnel
that the supreme court had held In.
valid the act NJ 1913 which attempted
10 abolish the superior court I'm ol
lahoma and other counties In 10 det
practically nothing has been done h,
the court here hut unless the legisln.
ture takes some adverse action. D,dys
Z. IL Garnett win soon open court
and he on the bench for all comers
The county commissioners. remember.
ing the experience NJ their prp,Ieces
sOrs In the Storm parman rnntrover.
sy, had refused tn honor any bills In
payment ~ salary claimed hy the men
whose offices were In question. but
aaHN