The Farmington times. [volume] (Farmington, Mo.) 1874-1902, 1899-11-23
JrMPED cLElR orr 7nE TRACK

~ shf t-b { III m fit mn 7 MI h
The lIonne Tcrgc Democrat Register
with zeal worthy Of a better causc
started ou, TO dcny Tn TNr,' state.
mcnt that the CpstAlPuc Glass Work
were closed down rs result Of lhr
Glass Trust policy, and To- affirm tia,
they stopped work bccau,c Of the Eve.
nal, ignorant and fearful legislation Of
ihis state Ia vain did wc call upon
!. to cite the laws that contributed to
the gla,, work, undoing It failed to
name - single clause of o single statute
that operated against tham, but cudeay.
orcd 10 cSadc and change thcissue Gre.
atcd by it, vicious indictment against
the laws Of our State, aul to wlfuly
misrcprcseEt GuE TIM, attitude tow
ards corporations lcgilimltely con
Quoted, IN order to confuse its readers
aud distract attention from It's untcna.
bic position. II has whitfield is Ear
guments" aud facts" down to the lit
tie end Of nothing, and wc here give in
full the bitter aud dying gasp of It's lame
aud inIp0tout conclusions:
The FAUutSUTbS TIHEs continues to refuse
20 adducc facts Ia support ut Us iiradc
against trusts, corporations an companies,
ana white Itwish"stho public 10 regard them
all as mnnnpuilcs, u advances no proof TO
show that they arc such
such subicriuRc as Tin TtuTs resorts rs
nako> u Imperative that W. stop further
discussion Of the subject. Why. BRO. FISHER
even sHcks 90 dodge the issue hy suggest.
I've reference to Judge y. what has the
judge to do with this matter more than had
IL senator =. senator L. orany other law.
ycf who may have bcea consulted ON points
Of inw' surely rus TINES confession Of
weakness Is astounding.
Perhaps II Bro. Fisher VIII read the letter
written by Judge Gcorgs CLARK OF Texas and
which appeared In last sundays Giohs.
Democrat, ON rage lG. he may note some
staiements that ha will b. willing TO accept
NJ facts.
II will be observed lba, even 10 OK.
piring !; persists in placing TuE TmEs
ia false position US TO incorporated
companies. We are opposed to the
purpose Of trusts, the Distinction be-
tween which aud corporations doing
legitimate business under their charters
we plainly sc, forth In former article,
but which the DIR. purposcly ignored
That, however, Is not surprising to one
who has followed It's peculiar line Of
tactics. Probably 1t Is so constituted |
that II cannot be direct and fsir II II |
would. and is therefore cxeusable.
To expose its subicringcs and eva.
sions has been such smooth sailing ,ha.
We have had no occasion to call IN le-
gal counsel, aud tho DR. would prob.
ably not have made such mess of its.
self Il Il had not done 50, II we may
Judge from the sort Of legal help Il has
received, which 50 utterly failed to sus-
tain Its boas, that il ''coald easily par
Iieaiasixe. - That Is what We respect.
fully asked II to do, and lie conlnsion
and failure confessed It's defeat fron.
The start.
We think lis conclusion TO ..stop
further discussion Of the sublcci' Ia u
wise one on IT. part. and VIC would fur
her advise It 10 hereafter refrain from
making srch ilippant, erouadiess and
rhoIesalo Indictments against the laws
4 sbe State 10 which u noarishes so |