Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-01-11


II matter how zoalously we may serve
II any political organization. If thereby
e YOU fail g. render lust service 10 an
I the people YOU have failed to perform
~ your real duty. Nor has any political
y party the right to demand or expect
u that YOU do less than your duty g. all
u Of the people. The usefulness Of any
'- political party or organization. reaCh hes|
It's end when that party ceases 10 be.
fair ana Just The majority party IN
a This state has won It's triumphs thus
~ far because II has ohampioned the
u rights oi the people, and has dealt
T. with uniform openuess and fairness
y with them. II viii continue TO ne the
.e dominant party Just az long az il con
" tlnucs this policy Of fairness but when
l. II outragos right, II VIII deserve and
'- receive rebuke at the hands Of the pco-
n pie,
code Commission
Past legislatures have appropriated
~ thousands Of dollars Of the people
- money in an effort to obtain a sensible
70 cudification Of the laws Of the state.
" That this codification is necessary, is
y admitted 10y all, and no man objects
n, % reasonable expenditure Of money,
n, If the desired result is obtained The
~ trouble is the money has been APP
~ proprlatcd and used, and no accepted
. code has been produced. II is unfor-
- tunatc that division arose among mem
- bers Of the code commission, as to
=, the proper course to be followed in
-, the progress of that work | am not
lIe undertaking to say who. il any one,
q. n, e.. I 4
~ hesitatlngly-the money expended
should have produced splendid code.
II II is no justification pf existing condi-
OF tions to say that other states have
Al spent more money for "a like purpose.
" Other states nave frequently done
ptthinrs we do not care to approve. The
IN oklahoma spirit is to do things in a
Oproper way and with the least burden
to the people. The taxpayers are de-
demanding 10 know why tho work for
Mcwhich their money has been used is
hepot completed. They have a right 10
cnnake this demand and TO know the
Reacts. As the representative Of the
of people they are expecting you tC pro
10 ect their interests in tEo matter
IA, In a spirit Of fairness 10 both fac
,hrious of the commission, This lCgisla-
d,r,ure should investigate the work done,
Ind place the responsibility where IT
g,,..clongs. You should not stop there
a,,, ,ut you should continue your labors
,n"util O code rs produced The quar-
els ana disaRroements among the
hembers Of the code commission are
',, np' OF interesting to the people; the per
anal ambitions Of these excellent gem
D"'emen are Of no public importance.
"rethat the people want and have paid
eA"'r, IL q satisfactory code, and moth
Joiig short Of this viii satisfy them.
'u' Court Relief
az az The crowded condition Of the dock
i''' IN the supreme court Of the state
cmauds serious consideration at
our hands No one VIII charge that
ne members Of that court are not
ding their fun duty. They are all
ilreless workers ana each Is doing his
ntertmost 70 relieve the congestion. But
step lere Is a limitation placed upon hui
thntan accomplishments beyond which
yauto man can go. Hundreds Of cases
the re now dockotod, awaiting q hearing
80 fnd the number is daily Increasing
The crowded condition of The dock
is a potent factor In 8 u further
lcreasing the number OF appeals. The
nsuccossful hugant IN the lower
| purt, when he realizes that his case
appealed. csnnot be reached foi
ears, is often tempted to appeal his
ase In order that he may delay Jus
oe. II is not unreasonable to asser
nat If speedy hearing could be had OF
N cases appealed, the number OF ap
calls would be materially reduced.
There are three remedies suggested
relieve the situation. First, the ad
ition Of other members Of the court
ocond. the creation OF temporary
ltermedlato court and third, th'
imitation Of the right OF appeal T(
ne the first ,roposltion does not ap
ear 20 ofier any substantial relief
{ any rate II is questionable how sew
man can more quickly decide
uestion than Ave can. The secon(
emedy proposed would give tempor
ry relief, for whatever work was Civ
n 20 that court would be taken from
he existing court, and the docke
ould be cleared in reasonable
angth Of time. The objection TO thi
roposltion is that II would materially
Increase the court expenses OF tn
tate, and offer no permanent relief
or Ns soon as the court was abol
he'd the present condition woult
aterially increase the court expense
the state, and ofrer no permanen
7lief; for as soon as the court wa
polished the present condition woul,
kelly return. Tho third remedy woul,
Iord permanent relief, without add
- cost 10 the people, and would no
lure litigants, Give FINAL jurisdic
'on TO district courts In all case
here the amount involved does no
Nceed FIVE hundred dollars, End yol