The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-23
70 THE PEOPLE
Of OKLAHOMA


Interest OF w. l., Eagleton as a can
dldate Tor the democratic nomination.
for Judge of the Criminal Court OF
Appeals from the Northern District Of
Oklahoma, printed on the stationery
Of the Anti-saloon League, dated July
II, 1910. and signed by Geo. D. Conger.
Superintendent, a fragrant and unjust
attack Is made upon Thomas II. DOYLE,
who Is seeking 10 succeed himself az
4 member OF that court, upon the
Criminal Court OF Appeals itself, ana
upon each and every present and
former member thereof
This letter says that Judge Doyle
has been an obstacle TO the enforce.
ment OF the prohibition law and d
friend of the liquor interests; that
the record of Lac court shows that he
has favored those interests at every
opportunity; and that he Is the author
OF several decisions which have ma.
terially interfered with law enforce.
ment, and under which all sorts OF
inJunctions have been issued by the
lower courts restraining interference
with shipments Of liquor brought into
the state In whatsoever quantities.
This letter further states that In many
instances convictions for violations of
the prohibition law have been revers-
ed on appeal upon technical errors in
the indictments; that without doubt
this might occur occasionally and be
perfectly proper but that II has hap.
pened altogether too frequently; and
the letter cites two occasions reversing
the conviction OF iiamp Snapp OF Me-
Lain county, and ID. G. Stout OF Okla
homa county. for selling liquor. the
reversals being on acc cunt OF defec-
tive indictments; and the circular
says that In some localities violators
|ot the prohibition law have been
turned loose because the Judge and
county attorney feared reversal
Inasmuch as the Criminal Court OF
Appeals Is and has always been coIa-
posed OF three judges. and the con
currence OF at least two judges Is re-
qpired to render an opinion. ana
since the court has been unanimous In
all It's decisions except one. this letter
must be construed az nothing less
than direct atta.k upon the court
itself and upon all the present and
former judges composing the same:
and for that reason the undersigned
present and former members Of the
court. every one OF whom did and do
believe in prohibition AID who advo,
Gated and voted for statewide prohi-
billion In this state. and who still
believe in the maintenance and strict
enforcement OF the prohibition law
these members believe. that these
false and wholly unjustifled charges
against Judge Doyle, the other judges,
and the court as whole. should not
be permitted TO go unchallenged or
In tae first place. the records Of that
court win shcw not single decision
rendered by Judge Doyle or by any
other member OF the Court which haA
interfered or can interfere In the |
least with the due, regular and lawful
enforcement OF the prohibition iaw u
any other law; nor will they disclose
any decision which can in any manner
be construed as authority for the is-
Ruance OF any form OF an Injunction
by any court restraining any state.
county, township or city officer from
doing any act which the constitution
or laws OF this state authorize or en-
power him 10 do In the enforcement OF
the prohibition law or any other Law.
And IL there are any county judges or
county attorneys IN this state Who
have turned loose any yiolators Of the
prohibition law because tney feared
the reversal of lawful convi;tion by
the Criminal Court OF Appeals. then
such county judges and county attor.
neys were either incompetent crayens.
or else they were eorruptionists seek. |
ing to eyade the performance OF their
duty.
II Is true that the court has reyers-
ed some liquor cases because of de-
fectiye indictments. and IL Is true that
the judgments In the Snapp and Stout
cases mentioned were reversed on
that account; but what is an appellate |
court TO do in such cases? The cir.
cular says that this might occur oc. |
easionally and be perfectly proper
and 1t seems TO proceed on the |
theory that only an occasional de-
fective indictment should be disap.
proved; that one general rule OF law
is not TO be applied TO all. The
statute provides what an indictment
must allege; aud 1t further provides
that defendant may demur 70 the IN.
dictment on the ground that II does
not substantially conform 10 The re
qujrements OF the law. that more than
one offense Is charged therein, or that
the facts stated do not constitute
public oifense; and that II the grounds
OF the demurrer be we'll taken. the |
court must sustain the same. Sec. 6747 |
Snyder's Statutes. Must the court |
disobey the statute, violate the solemn |
oath taken by each and every member |
thereof, and hold good an indictment |
that Is not good? Is that the Way TO
enforce the law. by violation OF IL By |
the, judges themselyes2 And Ii the
court may violate the plain letter OF
the law In one instance. why may 1t |
net do SO in another? And II ia two
instances. why not In all? And then
where remains any restraint upon the
arbitrary power OF the judges and the