The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-19

charge Of everything and suspend
their business and keep their goods
and property in his possession, until
some months in the future when the
court might finally thy the case. such
business as that would have half
of It's value desiroged BY such an
arbitrary proceeding AS everybody
knows that their established trade
with the retail merchants would at
once be turned to other wholesale
houses and by the time the case was
tried even should the grocery com.
pany be found not guilty. their trade
would be lost and heir goods greatly
deprecated I'm value The argument
OF the Judge might not exercise the
power given him IN this law IS an
sontely no excuse for making any
bad law, as the people are bound to
assume that when the law says that a
thing is authorized. we are bound to
contemplate that it m8y be done.
What would be the result on the
commerce Of our state by such an
arbitrary preceding being authorized
in our law?
Every wholesale house In the state
depends upon borrowing money from
the eastern cities. to carry their trade.
! This enables them to give the retail
merchant time on his goods and the
retail merchant having credit with the
wholesale house is enabled 10 give
! his customers time on what they buy
for home use. You destroy the credit
! Of the wholesale man and he cant
! extend credit 70 the retail merchant
and the retail merchant can't extend
credit TO the consumer, hence. Il a
farmer wants to buy goods and pay
for them after harvest he can't do Il
and Is compelled to borrow money
and buy for cash. or our retail mer
chants are driven to buy their stock
of goods from wholesale houses out
side our state. whose credit is not ef.
fected by the Oklahoma law. This
illustration can properly be applied to
every line Of legitimate business and
would simply destroy the wholesale
mercantile business in the state of
Oklahoma. because it would destroy
NhiNAA ff'hAA away AlbAl INlllf. ~ is
a serious proposition when ,ou say
that simply because the defendant Is
thought TO be guilty OF unlawful con
spiracy that his property shall ab
solutely be taken away from him and
his credit destroyed without giving
even a day OF two's notice IN which to
appear before the court and deny
the charge of conspiracy. nor on the
other hand do we want 10 weaken
the lfowers of the state so that the ef-
forts OF the officers Of the state 10
destroy trusts shall be crippled We
nave two or three instances in the
history Of the country, like the
Waters Pierce Oil Company. In Texas
and the Sugar Trust case, In Cali
iornia, where a little time allowed
the defendants gave them chance
to transfer their property and defeat
the ends OF Justice, but we must re
alize that this only suggests the ne
cessity for framing our law SO that
the state can destroy the trusts with
out az the same time destQging and
prohibiting legitimate business We
are not TO be as reckless as he who
applied such severe medicine to de-
st.oy the tick. that he killed borh
the tick and the COW. We do want TO
destroy the tick bat We want 10 pre-
serve the life Of the COW, hence. IN
secucn Two, | suggest the following
amendments:
taJ Let the orders be made by the
Supreme Court unless ia case OF We
cation, in which event majority Of
1he judges may ac,
tb) Let an injunction issue the
minute the case Is begun restrain.
Ing the defendant from TRANSFERRING
On removing the property In question
tcl Require that notice be given
he defendant and he be given an op-
lortunity to be heard before a receiver
IS appointed bearing iu mind thai
he Injunction prevents the defendant
from doing any wrong with The prop.
eriy in the day or two's time Il re-
.quires 10 notify him of the applica
lion for receiver
tdl In case The court the judges
ind that a receiyershlp is proper.
hen the defendant shall have the
right to retain possession Of his own
property provided thar he give a bond
In the case, in such amount and with
such securities as the court or the
Judges may think hest
You fully realize that receiver.
ship is not only expensive aud piles
up a big bin OF costs. but that Il Is
destructive of the business which
men may have been years ln building
up and II the defendant gives such
bond as the court finds Is ample. then
there should be no necessity for re-
ceivership
Remember this. that a six months
receiyership might completely dc
stroy ihe defendants business and a.
the end OF that time when an the wit
pesses are heard al the final trial
and the court and jury find that the
defendant was not guilty who Is there
10 pay the defendant the loss of his
destroyed business7