JUDGE JAMES R. ARMSTRONG Member of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals The distinguished jurist above named is now serving his second term as a member of this important branch of the states highest appellate court, of which body he was for some years the presiding judge. Judge Armstrong is a native of Alabama, and has not yet reached his fortieth year. He was admitted to the bar in the state of Tennessee in 1900, began the practice of law in Arkansas, but removed in 1902 to the Indian Territory, locating at Boswell in what is now Choctaw county, where he continued the general practice of his profession until 1907, at which time he removed to Hugo, which had become the county seat of that county. He was later elected district judge in what is now the Twenty-seventh Judicial District, from which position he was shortly promoted to the position he now holds. As a member of the Criminal Court of Appeals, Judge Armstrong has manifested the highest type of judicial ability. Although a relatively young man, his standing in his profession and his eminence on the bench have not served to limit his initiative and constructive ability as a business man of broad capacity and influential force, and he is an important factor in the development of industrial enterprises in the oil fields of the state and in railroad building. Vol. XIV OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., AUGUST, 1915 No. 2 OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL earnest purpose and pardonable ambition TO OUR READERS. In announcing the purchase of The Journal by a company organized and chartered for that purpose and the removal of its editorial and publication offices to the State Capitol, it is both opportune and fitting that the new management should give a brief outline of its plans for the future. In the first place it is our aim to continue the publication of The Oklahoma Law Journal on the same high plane of ethical and professional merit adopted by its founder and former editor, Mr. D. H. Fernandez, whose lamented death some months since has been previously noted in these pages. The removal of the publication and its offices to the State Capitol and the employment of improved facilities in its mechanical department will enable the new publishers to increase its size and attractiveness and add materially to its value and interest to patrons. The Oklahoma Law Journal now enjoys an extended field and an enviable position as an influential and widely circulated Journal of its kind, and it is the of its present publishers to improve its service in every department by adding new features that will strongly appeal to the interest and consideration of the legal profession in the southwest. Oklahoma at this time is the sc scene of exceptional judicial activity, the natural effect of the rapid commercial and business expansion which followed her induction into the sisterhood of states, and the flood of legislation which has resulted from the popular demands for regulation of public and private corporations and the readjustment of territorial affairs to meet the changed conditions under statehood. The center of this unusual activity in securing a final and definite adjustment of legal issues is in the appellate courts, and before the quasijudicial boards at the state Capitol, and the removal of the Journal to Oklahoma City, will materially increase its opportunities for usefulness to those whom it desires to serve. The Journal will strictly abjure partisan politics, though it will discuss with entire freedom the legal phase of political subjects of current or general inter est. We hope to gather about us a staff of regular and occasional contributors drawn from the brightest legal minds in the southwest and in this way to give to Oklahoma and the members of its legal profession a publication that will not suffer by comparison with the excellent law journals of other states. The acquisition of The Journal and its removal to this city were matters of such recent accomplishment that the issue for this month was necessarily a hurried and perfunctory affair, but the September number will mark the beginning of our efforts to make The Journal correspond with our hopes and ambitions for its future. Very sincerely, THE OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL This issue of The Journal, for reasons explained more at length in another column, is necessarily somewhat abridged in the matters of its contents. We have, however, taken up considerable space with the history, argument, citations, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Guinn v. The United States, otherwise known as "The Grandfather Clause." Because this is an Oklahoma case and one that has been a constant subject of public interest since the inception and passage of the amendment in 1910, and because the action of the Court revives the subject and throws it back into the political arena in Oklahoma, as a very probable bone of future political contention, we believe that our Oklahoma readers of all parties would like to have the decision and the contents of the briefs in easy reach. The text of the "Moseley" case which went up from Blaine County will be published in a subsequent issue. There is a temporary lull in the activity of the Appellate Courts during the annual vacation period, and a falling off in the volume of decisions that have been coming down from those tribunals in increased numbers during the spring and summer. Many decisions of wide public interest are expected when the Supreme Court reassembles for the September term. A late number of the Bench and Bar makes an earnest plea for the "Elimination of Useless Law Reports" and says in the course of its argument: "From the time of Coke down to a comparatively recent day, law reporting engaged the attention of many eminent lawyers. In recent years, however, it has to a certain extent fallen from its high estate. Originally and properly designed to render a service to the profession, it has degenerated into an enterprise to lure reluctant dollars from the pockets of lawyers who are constrained to buy innumerable decisions they do not want in order to get the few they need and must have. We even have the amaz ing spectacle of reported cases printed with the notation, made by the Court, "Not to be reported." The legislature of the State of New York, at its recent session, passed a bill which had for its purpose the discovery of a remedy for the evils flowing from the overproduction of law reports." This bill was later vetoed by the Governor, but its passage shows that the profession is becoming aroused to the increasing gravity of this steady overproduction of shelf goods. The September number of the Oklalioma Law Journal, will be practically the first number under the new management and will contain besides a monthly digest of opinions by the State Supreme Court, Criminal Court of Appeals and different divisions of the Supreme Court Commission, a summary of United States Supreme Court decisions; special articles on Oklahoma laws, by some of the State's foremost lawyers and jurists; a vigorous editorial department; Territorial Reminiscences, personal mention; and other features calculated to put it in the class with the law journals of the other States. A new subscription campaign will be put on for the Journal about October 1st. In the meantime we will be glad to hear from old subscribers with their renewals. GUINN AND BEAL v. U. S. CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT The so-called Grandfather Clause of the amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma of 1919 is void because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Grandfather Clause being unconstitutional and not being separable from the remainder of the amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma of 1910, that amendment as a whole is invalid. The Fifteenth Amendment does not, in a general sense, take from the States the power over suffrage possessed by the States from the beginning, but it does restrict the power of the United States or the States to abridge or deny the right of a citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. While the Fifteenth Amendment gives no right of suffrage, as its command is selfexecuting, rights of suffrage may be enjoyed by reason of the striking out of discriminations against the exercise of the right. A provision in a state constitution recurring to conditions existing before the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment and the continuance of which conditions that amendment prohibited, and making those conditions the test of the right to the suffrage is in conflict with, and void under, the Fifteenth Amendment. The establishment of a literacy test for exercising the suffrage is an exercise by the State of a lawful power vested in it not subject to the supervision of the Federal courts. Whether a provision in a suffrage statute may be valid under the Federal Constitution, if it is so connected with other provisions that are invalid, as to make the whole statute unconstitutional, is a question of state law, but in the absence of any decision by the state court, this court may, in a case coming from the Federal courts, determine it for itself. The suffrage and literacy tests in the amendment of 1910, to the constitution of. Oklahoma are so connected with each other that the unconstitutionality of the former renders the whole amendment invalid. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of the suffrage amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma, known as the Grandfather Clause, and the responsibility of election officers under § 5508, Rev. Stat., and § 19 of the Penal Code for preventing people from voting who have the right to vote, are stated in the opinion. Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, with whom Mr. C. B. Stuart, Mr. A. C. Cruce, Mr. W. A. Ledbetter, Mr. Norman Haskell and Mr. C. G. Hornor were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error: Determination of the constitutionality of the Grandfather Clause in the Oklahoma constitution, not being necessary to a full solution of this case, this court will not pass upon the constitutionality of such provision. Atwater v. Hassett, 111 Pac. Rep. 802; Bishop on Stat. Crime, §§ 805-806, Braxton County v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192; Burns v. State, 12 Wisconsin, 519, Devard v. Hoffman, 18 Maryland, 479; Liverpool Co. v. Immigration Commissioners, 113 U. S. 39; Mo., Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Feris, 179 U. S. 606; §§ 19, 20, Penal Code; § 5508, Rev. Stats. (§ 19, Penal Code); Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 139; Cruce v. Cease, 114 Pac. Rep. 251; New Oleans Canal Co. v. Heard, 47 La. Ann. 1679. As to the nature of suffrage, see Jameson on Const. Conventions, § 336. Suffrage in the States of the American Union is not controlled or affected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress; Brannon's Fourteenth Amendment, 77; Coffield y. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Miller's Lectures on Const., 661; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303; 1 Willoughby's Constitution, 534; 2 Id. 483; 5 Woodrow Wilson's Hist. Am. People. The Grandfather Clause does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Atwater v. Hassett, 111 Pac. Rep. 802; Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393; Dodge v. Woolsey 18 How. 371; Fairbanks v. United States 181 U. S. 286; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; Mills v. Green, 67 Fed. Rep. 818; Mill. v. Green, 69 Fed. Rep. 852; Mitchell v. Lippencott, 2 Woods, 372; McClure v. Owen, 26 Iowa, 253; McCreary v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621; Southern R. R. v. Orton, 6 Sawyer, 32 Fed. Rep. 478; State v. Grand Trunk R. R., 3 Fed. Rep. 889; Stimson's Fed. & State Const. 224; United States v. Reece, 92 U. S. 214; United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U. S. 542; United States v. Anthony, 11 Blatchf. 205; United States Des V. |