The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-23

every state III che Union. held that the
information was not valid and that the
lower court should have sustained the
defendants objection to H. HAD that
tssE deEe, the eoztty sitoflsy coaid
Immediately hass fiihi oEs properly
ITsfiiisi 2nd have Dr9cesasi WITH the
tiiAii and also hs could nsYs j1as 30
4 tor the reversal of the cauae
The Stout case, to which objection
Iis made. is reported in the End Okla.
cr, Rep. page 500, and in the lOs
Pacific Reporter, page S75 The
record Will show that Stout was In.
Idicted. tried and convicted before
statehood under a law then in force In
Oklahoma Territory, (Sec. 26l6 VII.
sons StatnteD which reads as fol-
lows:
Every inn-keeper or person
licensed TO sell liquors, who sells
or gives away airy strong or
spirituous liquor or wine upon
Sunday. Is guilty OK a misde-
meanor."
Stout was indicted for a violation OF
this law. and the Indictment alleged
only this: that "the defendant, ID. G.
Stout, did unlawfully and wrongfully
sell malt. spirituols and vinous liquors
on the first day OF the week commonly
called sunday" II did not allege that
Stout was an inn-keeper or q person
licensed to sell liquor. 1t did not
bring Stout Within the terms OF the
statute, and the court therefore held
that the Indictment was not good. We
suppose that all Will agree that the
law ought to have made It an oflense
for any person. whether he was an inn
keeper Or licensed liquor dealer or
not. to sell or give away liquor on the
Sabbath; but II did not do 80, and the
Criminal Court Of Appeals had no
power or right 10 change the SUD.
stantive Law. SO as to make Il include
what It In fact did not include. II
could only administer the law as il
found It, as the legislature enacted IT,
And we believe that not single
reputable lawyer can. be found In Ok.
lahoma or In any other state who will
pay 'nae .no coui. ueciaea eitner one
o. 'neSe sWo eases incorrectly'
1t was not the fault Of The Criminal
Court OF Appeals In the Snapp case
that the county attorney did not have
the Information verified, as the con.
stitution and statutes OF the state
plainly and specifically required him
10 90; nor was II the courts fault in
the stout case that the prosecuting
oilicer VINO drew the Indictment failed
70 aliege that Stout was an inn-keeper
OF person licensed 70 sell liquor. II he
was sucn. Ana the court mas no
power 20 disresard the pisin mandate
o. the law, ana US members no right
70 violate tneir. oatns and the constl'
tu'ion py noiding tnat laSfui which Is
piainly ana paipaniy not So
" may pe tpat when man takes
MS oatn OIL olllce as an appellate
Jnoge, and swears tnat he Will support.
protect and delend the constitution OF
tne united states ana the consultation
OF tne STATE Y soKlanoma, and that
ne VIII honestly and impartially ad-
minister tne laws o. tne state, " then
becomes MS duty 70 disregard those
iaws' ana " sustain indictments oe'
iectlVe not only, IN lorm .Dut IN SUD
stance When he law says tnat ne
tise not 90 so. ~ may pc that
Juuses oatn OIL oLlice Is iree charter
ior the usurpation oi the legislative
functions .ol government, ana empow;
ers MN 10 cnanke' repeai, ana enact
la"S AZ nis p'easu.e' 70 u'sresard tne
ana .ne statutes. 10 put
ci.i1ens upon ,fidl on Moic'mehts
Nn'en la'l 10 cAarse CRIME ana 10
require tnem tor appear IA court 70
answer ana aeienq iniormauons which
are no' SuppVr'eu ny Inc oa'h or III.
ol any person. II tnae %
.ue 'ie~ vi Tue 4Ah.i-oa,oon league
.nen We can olis say 'na' we nave
ne,er asresd WIN .nis F'e~' ana ior
'ie SANE VI cops'l'u.'ohai government
WIN 's 'ufs,s'on " po~e.s anu i's
sys'Vm VI cncsNs ana 'paiances. we
etus. .nae no ineMper Oh e.'nef oi our
appenu'e poui.s rhi.c,e. do 80. ~ ID
% pIesen. .na. very .mns mat con
a,i'u''uis' '.,'' uisiu'nk, "ss'kiHus ana nm,
''ms 'ne po"eiS ~ soss.nu'ene nave
oeen o,ualneu anu es'ap''sneu, SAYING