The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-21


irary proceeding. As cyerybod,
knows that their established trade
with the retail merchants. would al
once he turned 10 other wholesal.
houses and by Inc time the case was
ticd. even should the grocery com
pany he found not guilty, their trade
would be lost and their goods greatly
dnDreciated IN value The argument
inat The judge might not exercise the
power given him in this law is ahsD
iutciy no excuse for making any bad
law. as the people are bound TO as.
sumo that when the law Says that q
ting is authorized we are bound 10
contemplate that It may be done
What woul dbe the result on the
commerce of our state by such an
arbitrary proceeding being authorized
In our law?
Every wholesale house ia the state
depends upon borrowing money from
the eastern cities. TO carry their trade.
Ths enables them to give the retail
merchant time on his goods and the
retail merchant having a credit with
the wholesale house IS enabled TO give
his customers time en- what they buy
for home use You destroy the credit
of the Wholesale man aud he cant
extend credit to the retail merchant,
and the retail merchant can't extend
credit 90 the coneum3r, beuce, If a
farmer wants to buy goods and pay
70 rthem after harvest he can't do ii
an dis compelled to borrow money and
buy for cash, or our retail merchants
are driven to buy their stock Of goods
from wh9lesale houses outside our
state. whose credit IS not affected by
the Oklahoma law This illustration
can properly be applied to every line
of, legitimate business and would
simply destr0, the wholesale mercan.
tile business in the state of oklahoma
because il would destroy their credit
away from home. II is a serious pro
position when sou say that simply be
CAUSE the defendant is thought to be
guilty Of unlawful conspiracy that his
property shalt absolutely be taken
away from him and bis credit destroy
ed without giving even day or two's
notice in which TO appear before the
court and deny the charge of conspi
racy. nor, on the other hand, do we
want TO weaken the powers of the
state 80 that the efforts OF the officers
of the state o destroy trusts shall be
crippled We have two Rr thre In
stances In the history Of the country
like the Waters Pierce oil company.
Ia Texas and the Sugar Trust Case,
IN California, where a little time al
lowed the defendants gave them a
nd
defeat the ends OF Justice but we
must realize that this only suggests
the necessity for framing our law so
that the state can destroy the trusts
without at the same time destroying
and prohibiting legitimate business
We Gre not to be as reckless as he
who applied such a severe medicine
TO destroy the tick thai he killed both
the tick aud the COW. We do want
10 destroy the tick but we want to
presorye the life Of the COW. hence,
in section two. suggest the follow
ing amndments;
(a) Let the orders be made by the
epreme court unless in case of yaca-
tiun IN which event q majority of the
Judges may act
(b) Let am INDUCTION issue the min
ute the case is begun, restraining the
defendant from transferring or re
moving the property in question.
(cl Require that notice be given
the defendant ard he be given an Op.
portunity TO b heard before a receiver
Is appointed, bearing in mind that the
Injunction prevents the defendant
from doing any wrong with the prop
erty IN the day Or twos time It re
quires to notify him Of the application
for receiver.
tdl In case the court Of the judges
hnd that a receiyership is proper, then
the defendant shall have the right to