The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1911-04-24
CRUCE ISSUES STATEMENT
STRONGLY FAVORING 1T


does not exist there, but is in express
language eliminated therefrom.
II IS also contended that it viii rel
suit in the repeal OF article %, ali
though the resolution in plain lan-
euage says that it shall not be con-
strued to affect article 2S. There
would be just as much Justification
IL saying that proposed amendment
would repeal the Ten Commandments
OF destroy the Lords Prayer All
courts in constituting statute under
take to give the construction Of the
staute that win carry out the inten-
tion OF the makers thereof and sub
nit that there is no court on earth
So obtuse that it would place a con
structiou upon this provision that
would in any wise impair article %
Of the constitution
| approved this measure because +
believed ii was ID the interest Of the
people Of the state Of Oklahoma. and
IL the same matter were put ap to
me tomorrow IN the light Of all that
has been said against this measure. I
would Just as quickly approve it again.
i there is to be any real progress in.
Oklahoma. we must lay aside our pol
iiics. our personal interests. and our
political preferment. and look only %
the interest OF the masses Of the peos
PIE.
Oklahoma can never come into its
own until there are other railroads
built in this state. T1.ere are just two
ways % have fhis buIlding done. and
either win enia an amendment 10 the
constitution. One Is to permit The
people 70 tax themselves to build rail-
roads, which IS nov prohibited by the
constitutions the other is to permit
men and companies possessed Of ade-
Qpate capital living outside Of this
state to come here and build our roads.
TO do this will require an amendment
TO the constitution OF Oklahoma, such
as Is proposed at This time Choos.
ing between the two methods. | hes.
iiate not a moment ia taking the lat
ter course
Y ! thought the people OF this state
were surrendering single right TO
the corporate interests OF this coun-
try IN adopting tho proposed amend.
ment. | should oppose il as strenuous.
~ as I know how. but | know that the
public interests win not suffer by rea-
son Of this amendment. but on the
contrary, that greater development
viii quickly folIow and more than 4
million and half people viii be made
more prosperous and be better sery.
"a by the adoption Of this amendment.
! have had this matter looked up by
as good lawyers as there arc In the
state Of Oklahoma, or any other state
have practiced law myself for ten
years, and the contention made that
this proposed amendment win throw
down the bars to the standard Oil
company in its effort to control the
gas and OIL supply Of this state is alb.
soluteiy untenable from every logical
standpoint
Language Plain.
The proposed amendment expressly
states that it's operation is confined
to amy company corporation. trustee.
re-transportation or transmission com
paniess No one will contend that the'
term railway company includes
pipe lyines for -! or gas. The constl-
tuition in section "a, article 3, in plain
and unmistakable language defines
what "a transportation company"
and what "a transmission company"
under the terms Of the constitution
embrace A transportation company
is defined to include any company,
corporation. trustee. receiver or ANY
other person, owning, leasing or oper-
ating for hire. railroad. street rail-
way. canal, steamboat line. and also
any freight car company, car associa-
ton, express company, sleeping car
company car corporation or company,
person or persons in any way engag-
ed IN such business as common car
rier." "a transmission company shall
include any company receiver or 9TH
er person owning, leasing or operat-
ing for hire any telegraph or telephone
line" How anyone can construe this