Volume 9 , Issue 24

May 1907 - Judge Pancoast Sustained Injunction

In The Alva Pioneer, dated Friday, May 17, 1907, Alva, O. T., Woods (M) County, the northwest Oklahoma Territory citizens were reading about, "Judge Pancoast Sustained Injunction - Is Against the Calling of Election In Major and Alfalfa Counties."

Friday's Daily -- In the District court of Woods County, Oklahoma Territory, G. E. Autry, Plaintiff vs. Frank Frantz, W. H. Murray, John M. Young, C. H. Chowning, C. M. Delsell, M. R. Manafield, Charles Bowman, J. C. Major, I. J. Corwin and Charles B. Powell, Defendants.

"This is an action in equity, commenced in this court, the object and prayer of which is to enjoin the defendants, Frank Frantz, W. H. Murray, and John M. Young from issuing or publishing any proclamation in which proclamation it is proposed to submit to the electors of the proposed state of Oklahoma, either as a part of the proposed constitution or as a separate ordinance, any clause or provision dividing or purporting to divide Woods County, or changing or in any way interfering with any township or precinct therein, and to enjoin and restrain the said C. I. Overstreet, C. H. Chowning, C. M. Delzell, M. R. Mansfield, Charles Bowman, J. C. Major, I. J. Corwin and Charles B. Powell from in any wise interferring with or usurping or attempting to usurp any of the duties of the county commissioners or county clerk, or any or either of them, of the county of Woods in or about the said proposed election or any of the preparations therefor, or in any part of the territory of the county of Woods, as now described and existing, and from in any wise acting or attempting to act in any capacity or to any extent in any election to be held in the said pretended counties of Alfalfa and Major or either of them.

"The defendants filed a demurer to the petition, questioning the jurisdiction of the court, and also filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction issued by Probate Judge Wilson.

"Judge Pencoast (sic) very pertinently and forcibly pointed out his authority for hearing and acting in the case, and 'the plaintiff claiming that the division of Woods county by the constitutional convention and the appointment of these officers (In Alfalfa and Major) and prescribing their duties is an unwarranted and illegal assumption of power not granted by the enbabling act, either by express provision or by implication; that the division of Woods county, the appointment of the officers and the holding of an election in the manner provided, are each unauthorized.'"

"It is true that the case is one of public interest, as well as individual interest, but the fact that the case is one of public interest does not deprive the individual of his rights to a remedy for wrongs committed."

"Practically all the questions submitted turn and hinge more or less upon the construction contended for by the parties of the powers of the convention."

"It is contended by the plaintiff that the power and authority of the constitutional convention is derived solely from the powers granted in the enabling act and that every power granted to the convention must be found and expressed therein; that the power granted by the enabling act embraces no legislative grant, but confers only the power of a committee to adopt and propose fundamental propositions which, upon ratification, may become the fundamental law of the state."

"The powers conferred by the enabling act are to be liberally construed with a view of giving full expression to the intention of congress. At the same time the powers of the convention must be controlled by the act bringing it into existence and by the intent of congress as expressed therein. The powers granted are delegated powers. The convention possesses no inherent powers, nor any sovereignty of the people. In the congress of the United States is vested the supreme legislatuve power over territories, and the power to admit new states carries with it the power to provide for their admission and the power to restrict a constitutional convention in its acts."

"To give the enabling act the construction contended for by the defendants would be in effect to say that congress, without any express grant, but by mere inference, delegated to the convention an unlimited and hidden power -- divested itself of its right and interest and duty to the people of this territory, and conferred upon a body of mere agents a blank warrant of absolute power to dictate and determine upon many, if not all, of the most cherished interests of the people. It matters not that it may be said that the convention has not seen fit to exercise the full extent of its power in this regard, yet if the power exists, it may have done so."

"To admit the argument that because nothing is said upon a given subject in the enabling act, that on that subject unlimited power is conferred, then all power has passed both from congress and from the people of the territory."

The entire decision would cover a page of the Pioneer, and at this time we cannot give it in full, but we have quoted many of the essential points and the instrument all the way through is concise, comprehensive, reasonable, and sound from both legal and equitble standpoints; and we believe Judge Pancoast has promulgated a decision that will easily stand the test of the higher courts.

It is to be regretted that the leaders in the constitutional convention did not listen to reason in their actions, and that all the delegates did not look up some law themselves and fight against the grievous errors that are now causing trouble.
  |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---