Hon. James Haskins Sutherlin. When the Thirty-second
Senatorial District sent James H. Sutherlin of Wagoner to the Senate
in 1912, it gave to the Legislature the services of one of the most
competent and scholarly lawyers of the state and a man of long
experience in public life in Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Senator Sutherlin has been justly called one of the dynamic citizens
of Oklahoma, and a man of light and leading in the Senate. He is a
man of many parts, a student, a thinker, and the powers of an
original mind have not only served him well in solving the intricate
problems of legal practice, but also in helping to formulate the
well-balanced program of legislation for the new state.
The record of his
individual services in the State Senate during the past four years
will furnish instructive material to the historian of the future who
endeavors to understand and interpret the political life of Oklahoma
during the first ten years of statehood.
In the fourth
Legislature Senator Sutherlin was chairman of Judiciary Committee No.
1. He was author during that Legislature of an important measure that
lowered tax levies, and took a
conspicuous part in legislation affecting oil and gas, the production
of which is an important industry in his part of the state. He also
took a leading part in favor of the passage of legislation
establishing the capital at Oklahoma City and for building the same.
Ho attempted the passage of a resolution reorganizing the judiciary
of Oklahoma, and that was the measure to which he gave his particular
attention during the session of the Fifth Legislature. In the fifth
session he was also a leader of measures designed to make the
production of oil and gas more profitable, particularly with
reference to conservation, production and transportation. He was one
of the joint authors of the oil conservation bill which became a law.
He also rendered active assistance in the passage of the
home-ownership measure presented by Senator Campbell Russell. In the
Fifth Legislature he was chairman of the Committee on Constitution
and Constitutional Amendments, and a member of committees on
Appropriations, Ways and Means, Privileges and Elections, Education,
Public Buildings, Oil and Gas, State and County Affairs, and
Legislative and Judicial Apportionment. In his legislation work he
has taken an active part in maintaining the liberal policies of the
Oklahoma constitution.
Much attention has
been attracted over the state to Senator Sutherlin’s proposed
constitutional amendment affecting the judiciary, to which he gave
much thought, study and labor. It was introduced by him in the Fifth
Legislature. The proposed bill has been highly commended as a measure
which would serve to simplify and correlate the various judicial
powers vested in the state, and a brief digest of the proposed bill
is worthy of record in this sketch.
As introduced during
the session in the Fifth Legislature his measure provided that the
judicial power of the state should be vested “in the senate,
sitting as a court of impeachment, a supreme court, courts of
appeals, district courts, courts of justices of the peace and
municipal courts” and provided that the Legislature might
abolish the present Criminal Court of Appeals. All other courts,
except the Senate, as a court, were made inferior to the Supreme
Court, and that court was given general supervisory jurisdiction over
all courts.
The court system of
the state at the time of the proposal of this amendment to the
constitution consisted of a Supreme Court, commissioners to the
Supreme Court sitting in divisions of three each in an advisory
capacity to the Supreme Court and whose written opinions were usually
adopted in toto by the Supreme Court; a Criminal
Court of Appeals (a statutory court), district courts, a County Court
in each county and justices of the peace. The main changes proposed
in this amendment sought to abolish the commission to the Supreme
Court and also to abolish the County Courts and establish instead one
Supreme Court composed of a chief justice to be elected by the state
at large and four associate justices to be elected from districts;
Courts of Appeals to sit throughout the state; District Courts (one
court of original jurisdiction); and courts of justices of the peace.
The amendment provided that all appeals should be directly from the
District Court to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court
should have jurisdiction on appeal only in cases where the amount
involved exceeded $3,000, and in all extraordinary matters, such as
suits involving taxation or the fiscal policy, divorces, alimony and
constitutional questions regardless of
the amount involved.
The Court of Appeals
should have jurisdiction on appeal only from the District Court in
all ordinary civil or probate matters where the amount involved was
less than $3,000 and more than $100. The District Court should have
original jurisdiction of all matters, probate and civil, where the
amount involved exceeded $100, and appellate jurisdiction from the
courts of justices of the peace where the amount involved exceeded
$20.
There should be no
appeal from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, but the Court
of Appeals should have the right to certify any case or any question
to the Supreme Court for its decision, or the Supreme Court should
have the right on its own motion under its general supervisory
control to order the Court of Appeals to certify any case or any
question to it for its decision, and any litigant was given his
remedy to apply to the Supreme Court or any judge thereof for writ of
review or certiorari to the Court of Appeals, and in the event such
writ was issued by the Supreme Court or any judge thereof, such case
should be certified by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court and
there stand for hearing the same as if originally appealed to the
Supreme Court.
The state was
divided into three Court of Appeals Districts, each district to elect
three judges of such court to sit together as such Court of Appeals
in such district, in the principal cities and towns of said district.
The clerk of the District Court of the county wherein the Court of
Appeals sat should be ex-officio clerk of such Court of Appeals and
the sheriff of such county should attend such court. All appeals to
the Court of Appeals should be on the original papers from the
District Court and no printed records or briefs required, and the
cost of appeal in the Court of Appeals should not exceed $5. The
Court of Appeals was required to render short, concise, written
opinions “referring to the law by virtue of which every judgment
is. rendered and adducing the reasons on which their judgment is
founded,” but such opinions should not be published.
The object and
purpose of these changes was to limit the Supreme Court to a small
number of judges and thus strengthen and make more uniform the
jurisprudence of the state, eliminate opportunity for the
jurisprudence of the state to become conflicting, and to provide an
easy, inexpensive and expeditious remedy in all ordinary matters of
litigation, the decision of which should be only the law of that
case.
It provided that the
Criminal Court of Appeals might be abolished by the Legislature and
appellate jurisdiction in such event conferred by the Legislature on
the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or both, and limited
criminal appeals from the District Court to cases where the
punishment actually imposed was a fine of $200 or over or
imprisonment in the county jail of more than sixty days.
Other important
changes provided were: Abolishment of trial by jury in civil cases in
justice of the peace courts; in the District Court, “in all
civil cases where the cause of action is not based upon unliquidated
damages, a trial by jury shall be presumed to be waived unless
specially asked for in writing by a party to said cause
at least ten days prior to the term at which said cause shall stand
for trial, and the Legislature shall provide for the payment by any
party thereto of jury fees in all civil cases tried by jury based
upon causes of action for liquidated damages;” the reduction of
the number of jurors to try cases; and conferring power upon
Appellate Courts to render judgment in cases on appeal without
remanding for new trial.
Justices of the
peace were given original jurisdiction in all civil cases where- the
amount involved did not exceed $100, except in actions for libel and
slander, probate matters, or when the estate of a decedent is a
defendant, or when the state, county or any municipality or other
political corporation is a party, or when the title to real estate is
involved, and in all misdemeanor criminal cases in which the
punishment does not exceed a fine of $100 or imprisonment exceeding
thirty days, and as committing magistrates in all felony cases.
The proposed
amendment contained forty-three sections, worked out with great
particularity to suit the conditions existing in the state, and
completely reconstructing the judicial system and greatly simplifying
it.
Senator Sutherlin by
his own career has added some distinction to an honored family name.
James Haskins Sutherlin was born in Mansfield, Louisiana, October 25,
1870, a son of John H. and Sarah (Keener) Sutherlin, being the
youngest of eleven children. The Sutherlin family were early settlers
in the region of Danville, Virginia, and the senator’s grandfather
was a captain in the War of 1812. The father, a native of Virginia,
when a mere lad emigrated to the State of Alabama where, in Autauga
County he married Sarah Keener, a daughter of German parents. A few
years later in the early ’50s he and his young wife, accompanied by
wagon train and eighteen slaves, which had been the gift of the
bride’s father, set out across country from Alabama for Texas. They
stopped in a then wild but fertile section of Northwestern Louisiana,
then being settled, and never completed the journey to Texas. In that
region, undergoing the hardships incident to pioneering, they
established a home where they reared their family and where the
father eventually became an extensive land owner, his large
plantation being still intact.
Senator Sutherlin
has two brothers and one sister living. One of them is Judge Edgar W.
Sutherlin of Shreveport, Louisiana, who was for eight years a member
of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana and one of the leading lawyers
of the state. The other brother is Dr. William K. Sutherlin, also of
Shreveport, head of a large private sanitarium there and recognized
as one of the leading surgeons of the state, and who in the course of
his preparation spent five years as a student in Berlin and Paris,
graduating in medicine from the Frederick William University at
Berlin. The sister is Mrs. G. A. White of Louisiana.
When ten years of
age Senator Sutherlin lost his mother and at twelve his father. He
was reared in the home of his elder brother Judge Sutherlin, and
under the direction, care and tutelage of both brothers, judge and
doctor. At twelve years of age he was placed in a French family in
South Louisiana for the purpose of learning the French language,
where he remained two years. At fifteen
he entered Thatcher’s Institute, a military college of respectable
standing, at Shreveport, where he
remained for four years and from which he graduated with a Bachelor
of Arts degree in 1889, then being senior captain of the corps of
cadets and as valedictorian of his class.
In 1889 he entered
the classical department of the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville and was graduated from that institution in 1892 with
a B. A. degree. He was subsequently admitted to the bar, and after a
brief practice in Mansfield, in 1894, removed to Santa Fe, New
Mexico. During his four years’ residence in New Mexico he was city
attorney of the City of Santa Fe and also master in chancery in the
United States Court, and United States commissioner under Judge N. B.
Laughlin, then associate justice of the Supremo Court of the
Territory of New Mexico. In 1898 he returned to Louisiana, practiced
law there ten years, and since 1908 has been a resident of Wagoner,
Oklahoma.
Senator Sutherlin
was married in 1894 at Mansfield, Louisiana, to Irene Elam, daughter
of Joseph B. Elam, who was a member of the Secession Convention of
the State of Louisiana, speaker of the House of Representatives of
the Louisiana Legislature during the Civil war, and for a number of
years represented the Fourth Louisiana District in Congress. Mr.
Sutherlin has a family of four children: Mary E. and Sarah K., who
are graduates of the Wagoner High School, Irene and Edgar W.
Senator Sutherlin is
a member of the Episcopal Church and belongs to the Wagoner County
and Oklahoma Bar associations. He has been one of the leading spirits
of his home town in its growth during the last few years. As a member
of the Board of Freeholders elected to draft a charter for the city
under the commission form, he largely drew the charter, which is one
of the most modern of commission form documents. When the charter was
adopted he declined to become a candidate for the first mayor under
the new form of government, when his election was practically assured
without opposition.