good citizens must acknowledge the justice of the penalty of the law in such a case. We are of opinion that the defendant John Henry Prather has been adjudged to suffer the just penalty of the law in the manner prescribed by law, and upon his trial the formalities of law essential to the taking of human life have been fully observed. Opinion by DOYLE, Judge. Very Respectfully Furman, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, concurring Continued from page 56 is properly presented in this court for review as to errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below. Whitacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 337,87 P. 865; Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586; Kimdriel v. Montgomery, 115 P. (Okla.) 1013; Meyer v. James, 115 Pac. 1016. As it was essential that all the errors complained of should be presented for the consideration of the trial court by motion for a new trial, and an exception reserved thereto, it follows that there is nothing before us on this record for review. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. All the Justices concur. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Late Important Opinions. COYLE vs. SMITH, Secretary of State of the State of Oklahoma. Decided May 29th, 1911 State of Oklahoma. Error to the Supreme Court of the 1. The power to locate its own seat of government, to change the same, and to appropriate its public money therefor, are essentially state powers beyond the control of Congress. 2. The power given to Congress by Art. 4, $3, of the Constitution is to admit new States to this Union, and relates only to such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and competency to exert the residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government. 3. The cons.itutional duty of Congress of guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government does not import a power to impose upon a new State, as a condi. tion to its admission to the Union, restrictions which render it unequal to the other States, such as limitations upon its power to locate or change its seat of government. 4. No prior decision of this court sanctions the claim that Congress in admitting a new state can impose conditions in the Enabling Act, the acceptance whereof will deprive the State when admitted of any attribute of power essential to its equality with the other States. 5. Congress may embrace in an enabling act conditions relating to matters wholly within its sphere of powers, such as regulations of interstate commerce, intercourse with Indian Tribes and disposition of public lands, but not conditions relating wholly to matters under state control such as the location and change of the seat of government of the State. 6. The Constitution not only looks to an indistructible union of indistructible States, Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, but to a union of equal states as well. 7. The legislature of Oklahoma has power to locate its own seat of government, to change the same and to appropriate money therefor, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, 31 Stat. 267, c. 3335, and the ordinance irrevocable of the convention of the people of Oklahoma accepting the same. Opinion of Oklahoma Supreme Court Affirmed. APPLEBY vs. CITY OF BUFFALO. Decided May 29, 1911 Error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. 1. The right of this court to review the judgment of the highest court of a State is specifically limited by $700, and, in cases such as this, depends on an alleged denial of a Federal right which the record shows was specially set up and claimed in, and denied, by the state court or that such was the necessary effect of the judgment. 2. Assignments of error made for the purpose of bringing the case to this court cannot originate the right of review here. 3. An exception in the state court that the judgment deprives plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States only affords ground for an inquiry whether the proceedings themselves show a want of due pro cess. 4. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State from taking private property for public use without compensation, C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. vs. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, but where the State has adequate machinery for ascertaining compensation on notice and hearing which were availed of and there was no ruling by the State court which prevented compensation for property actually taken, there is no lack of due process because of the amount awarded, even if only nominal. Judgment entered on authority of 189 N. Y., affirmed See Adv. Sheets U. S. Reports, No. 3 of vol. 221. REVIEWS. THE LAW OF MOTOR VEHICLES. By Berkley Davids. Published by Edward Thompson Company, Price $5. Northport Long Island, New York. The latest complete work on the law of motor vehicles has just been published by the established and reliable firm of Edward Thompson; this firm never turns out that which is not standard. In this work of Judge Davids the law as it now exists, and the authorities adjudicating the cases that have arisen are both to be found. It is not a padded book but one in which theauthor at once goes into the kernel of the matter stating only what needs to be stated and leaving nothing unsaid that ought to have been told or discussed. The great importance of a thorough knowledge of the law on this subject is self-evident to every lawyer. It is more important than a knowledge of the law governing street cars one may almost say than that governing railroads for the reason that almost every family that can afford is securing and operating automobiles. Often operating them themselves without the requisite experience to safely propel them, causing injuries to person and property. So that a comprehensive knowledge when the owner of one of these machines is liable and of when not is of the utmost importance to the profession. In this work all these points become clear. Again the necessity of this volume is an absolute one to dispel the erronous view held at the outset: that an automobile was a dangerous instrumentality per se, and that the law placed their operation in the category of bringing ferocious beasts into a community and that the owner was held to the highest degree of care. This doctrine has been modified, and the rules governing the liability of owner and operators based upon rules peculiar to itself in many instances, all of which are made clear and fortified by the many actually adjudicated cases; as these machines have been in use in the eastern states a number of years and many hundreds of cases that have arisen, decided by the highest courts. This volume is divided into 19 chapters and an extensive appendix, which contains all the leading legislative enactments, not only in the various states of the Union, but English and Canadian. While the whole book contains nothing useless and all should be carfully studied, the chapters on 'Regulation and Use,' 'Mutual Rights of Operators and Others on Highway,' should, as Bacon says, not only be studied, but "chewed and digested.” It also contains a chapter on the possible rules of law on Aviation that will hereafter obtain. The volume contains a good index and is well printed and most substantially bound. EDITORIALS. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma will meet on September 1st. in order to install the new court of Supreme Court Commissioners and assign them work. A few other matters may come before the Court incidental to the work of the coming term, but the regular work of the Court will not begin until the second Tuesday in September. We desire to notify our readers that hereafter the post office business addresses of all officers: State officers of Supreme Court, Court of appeals and that of their stenographers whose names have heretofore appeared in this Journal as at Guthrie, must now be addressed at Oklahoma City. But Remember that anything to be addressed to The Oklahoma Law Journal, or its editor. must, as yet, be addressed to GUTHRIE, Oklahoma. |