PROFESSIONAL NEWS.

Hon. Ledru Guthrie, one of the prominent lawyers of Oklahoma City has been in ill health the early part of summer and had to resort to the Hot Springs in search of health. He has been afflicted with Articular and muscular rheumatism and at one time he was hardly expected to recover

However, during the last three weeks he has made rapid improvement and his many friends now trust that he is out of danger.

Mr. J. H. Calvert of Logan County is candidate for the nomination of Insurance Commissioner. Later members of the Bar may not know that Mr. Calvert is a lawyer and was at one time not only well identified with the Profession but for several years an officer of The Oklahoma Bar Association. He has of late years devoted most of his attention to Insurance.

HON. LEO MEYER. -We feel so confident of the nomination of Mr. Leo Myer, that it is hardly necessary to waste amunition on him before the primary. He is respected and admired by all who know him.

He is not

only an ideal candidate but has been a most competent officer and his election will be an honor to the State of Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Law Journal is under obligations to Hon. T. S. Hardison, of Hugo, Oklahoma. Mr. Hardison is one of the leading lawyers of his city and county, and has our best wishes.

Hon. Geo. W. Robertson, of Checotch is candidate for County Attorney of his county, Mr. Robertson is a gentleman in all that the term implies and most competent to fill the duties of the office.

Judge John H. Burford, for zeal, effort, and loyalty, in the Capitol fight, has justly earned the everlasting gratitude of Guthrie and its citizens.

Judge J. G. Schofield, of Checotah, is the republican candidate for County Judge. He came here from Kansas but was originally from Ohio. The Judge is a well seasoned lawyer of many years experience in the practice. He has been a United States Commissioner and filled acceptably all positions of trust with which he has been honored. Should the judicial mantle fall to his party none could wear it with better credit to himself or honor to the profession he represents.

Hon. Edgar A. De Meules who has been counsel for he Midland Valley Railroad, by reason of faithfulness and efficient service has been promoted to a much higher position in the service of that company. Mr. De Meules is rapidly becoming one of the most prominent legal counsel West of the Mississippi.

Hon. J. P. Day, a member of the Code Commission, formerly of Poteau but now of McAlester has formed a law partnership with the distinguished firm of Brewer & Andrews of McAlester. Mr. Day was placed on the Code Commission by reason of his ability as a lawyer and his selection of Pittsburg County, the central mining district of the State, will afford him an ample field for legal efforts.

Hon. John H. King, of Muskogee, is a candidate for District Judge from Muskogee County, and is expected to succeed himself in that judicial office. Judge King is one of the strongest and most popular district Judges in the State.

THE DEATH OF CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

Justice Fuller was born in Maine in 1833 and died on July 4th, 1910. He was appointed Chief Justice by President Cleveland in 1888, and served on the Supreme Bench until his death.

The Edward Thompson new publications continue to have great demand. The New Encyclopædia of Law and Practice is the admiration of the lovers of the best legal literature.

THE

OKLAHOMA

LAW JOURNAL

VOL. 9.

EDITED AND PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY

D. H. FERNANDES, GUTHRIE, OKLAHOMA.

August, 1910.

No. 2.

"THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."

Having received letters from lawyers in Kansas, Arkansas and Texas, points in which a goodly number of The Oklahoma Law Journal circulate, asking that we publish the "Grandfather clause law," we give below the Resolution of the late Oklahoma Legislature, passed on the 28th day of last March, and which has received the above nickname. While we here publish it principally for the benefit of outsiders, the Oklahoma lawyer will find it on pages 284 and 285 of Session Laws of 1910, as Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 31.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 31. Whereas, It is desirous to ascertain the sentiment of the people of the State upon the advisability of proposing and adopting an amendment to our Constitution affecting the right of suffrage by the application of an educational test such as would result from the adoption of the amendment hereinafter proposed; Therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives Concurring Therein, That this, the Extraordinary Session of the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma, suggest to the citizens of the State that they initiate, by

petition, under the provisions of Senate Bill No. 126, of this session, as a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State, to be ratified or rejected by the vote of the people, the following to be known, if adopted or approved, by a majority of the votes cast at such election, as section 4 A of article 3:

No person shall be registered as an elector of this state or be allowed to vote in any election held herein, unless he be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was, on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation and no linial descendant of such person shall be denied the right to vote because of his inability to so read and write sections of such Constitution.

Precinct election inspectors having in charge the registration of electors shall enforce the provisions of this section at the time of registration provided registration be required. Should registration be dispensed with the provisions of this section shall be enforced by the precinct election officers when electors apply for ballots to vote. Approved March 28th, 1910.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RY.

COMPANY vs. MELTON.

Error to the Court of Appeals of State of Kentucky. Decided May 31th 1910

1. When a Federal question does exist the writ of error will not be dismissed as frivolous or as foreclosed by former decisions when analysis of those decisions is necessary, where there has been division of opinion in the court below, as in this case, and conflict of opinion in prior decisions as to the point involved.

2. This court is not concerned with the construction given by a state court to the statute of another state un

less such construction offends a properly asserted Federal right.

3. Whether a state court failed to give the full faith and credit required by the federal constitution to a statute of another state because it did not construe it as construed by the courts of the latter state is not open in this court unless the question is properly asserted in the state court. 4. The reiterated assertion in the lower court of Federal right based solely on one provision of the federal constitution is basis for the inference that no other provision was relied upon.

A question under the federal constitution does not necessarily arise in every case in which the courts of one state are called upon to construe the statute of another state; the general rule in the absence of statutory provision, is that a settled constrcution of a statute relied upon to control the court of another state must be pleaded and proved, and, if not pleaded and proved, the court construing the statute is not deprived of its independent judgment in regard thereto.

6. In determining on writ of error a federal question, this court cannot predicate error as to matters which should be, and are not, pleaded or proved.

7. The equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive the States of the power to classify, but only of the abuse of such power; nor is the clause offended against because some inequality may be occasioned by a classification in legislation properly enacted under the police power.

8. A classification in a state police statute proper as to a general class is not unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it ignores inequalities as to some persons embraced within the general class.

9. The Employers' Liability Statute of Indiana of 1893 is not unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it subjects railroad employes to a special rule as to the doctrine of fellow servant, Tullis vs. Lake Erie Western R. R. Co.,