The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1900-01-27
vInw roINr or VA. nrAvns.

/ Manager of the Suppressed Variety Thea
tre Known as Honkatonk, Talks.
Editor Leader:--I have been asked
what think OF the order closing up
our theatre business. Well, that or
der simply destroys our business; we
are ruined, Our property is rendered
valueless, as the building was con-
structed solely for the use of the thea
tre The rcdes prori"its us from rum
ming any kind a., u re. Rm not
a lawyer al h, c hol ersed in the
technicalities OF the law, but as a
matter Of common sense, OF which
claim to possess small amount, the
order seems to me far-reaching. My
attorneys say the law under which the
! injunction is issued is section 2249 of
/ the oklahoma statutes, which says:
"a public nuisance Ia a crime against
/ the order and economy of the terri
tory and consists in unlawfully doing
the following acts;
First. an act which annoys the re.
pose of a considerable number of per
sons, or second, an act which offends
public decency.'
A common sense view OF this law is
that in order for an act be o public
nuisance it must be crime, and to be
a crime IL must be an act declared by
law TO be crime, with punishment
attached, and the statute you will
note says public nuisance consists in
unlawfully doing certain acts which
are OF the character OF those specified.
The dictionary says TO do an unlawful
act is an act prohibited by law.
Now IL we have been guilty Of
maintaining a public nuisance we are
guilty Of doing acts prohibited by law
and declared criminal, as we have
always endeavored TO keep within the
limits of the law.
/ have made a careful examination
of our laws and cannot find any law
which we have violated. The conduct
ing of a theater is neither a crime nor
a public nuisance. II any act of ours
incidental to the conduct of the thea
ter has been criminal, it has never
been charged or proved against us. II
any act Of ours was criminal, that act
should have been restrained. and not
the theRter business as an entirety.
j. M. Brooks operates q theater in
which appear women dressed the same
as my employees. The only difference
Setween the places is that / sell liquors
to patrons and TO my employees. This
am licensed to do by statute. The
question of whether or not some Of my
employees were women of bad repute
Is of no moment, for there is no law
making the employment of such people
q crime, nor is II crime for a woman
, to be unchaste.
Our damage can hardly be estimated
and we have no recourse. What are
we going to do? Why there is nothing
for us 10 do but submit to the order.
AS TO the future l will say that we
have not at this time fully determined
where we will go. We are correspond
ing with Oklahoma City parties, and
have been offered very good induce
ments TO move TO that city. which my
brother will probably accept. / have
Just resolved the offer of good salary
to come to Joplin, Mo-, and assume
management of the variety theatre
there. Yes, we have Dissolved partner
ship and the court has Dissolved our
business. Persons are requested 10
present claims as directed in the pub
lished notice of dissolution.
What about starting up in the fu.
ture il the court should reverse its de-
cision? II we accept the proposition
made us we will not be here, and we
certainly have no desire TO longer
live in community where one mans
civil rights, under the law, are more
sacred than an others. II Mr. Greer
can suppress a business that does not
come up to the standard of his inflated
sense Of morality, or can remove every
employee of such business and every
resident Of the vicinity in which he
conducts his nuisance, in case their
) moral habits are not on parity with
those OF some preacher or anti-saloon
freak, why then, those whose rights
do not compare W tn others had bet
ter move The equitable view of the
relative rights OF Greer ana IA wcul
seem in our favor for Greer bought
all OF his property within the vicinity
OF our theatre with full knowledge OF
il and long after our bus ness was 'es-
; tablished.
ad r. S. REAvEs.