Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1912-10-27
r. T. Daniel Replies to James Davenport
lnCidently Asks Few Questions Himself

man. when hc thinks back 10 lh'
floods ON tho Mississippi This wear
honestly say thnt he believes iu ;W-
Tier harassing these poor people oi
the south
Ny Platform,
You ask upon which platform
stand slagd upon the broad plat
form of human rights, ana shall not
bo narrowed by going partisan plind
stand upon platform that Is best
Ia the Judgment of the masses fol
The whole people Of this growing and
prosperous nation, Tho Third Dis
lrict is one of the richest in the
United states, and Possesses us high
Il degree OF intelligence as alN Sec
lion under The sun | stand ON a
platform that viii De TO the best inter
sct Of the people Of this district ana
to The best interests of the industries
Of this district, including oil, gas, lead,
/ zine ana other natural resources,
which I shall aid In developing.
AS long az the Republican plat.
form, or the progressive platform or
the democratic platform stands for
| The best for the whole nation II shah
have my support, and when II falls
to fll that function, 1t will cease to
have my support.
] am broad enough 10 act for the
best interests of my constituency re-
gardless Of whether somebody away
! back east, who knows nothing OF
the conditions Of my district, wrote n
certain plank in any platform. / do
not object to clean" on platform,
as long as that platform Is for the
best interests Of the people; neither
am | opposed to abandoning 1t, tenn
porarily at least, when II works n
hardship ON the people.
How You Stand on Law Enforcement
You challenge me 10 debate with
yCu on four questions, three m which
have answered. You seem to
stand for many things now but
your record shows more grand
Nandiug.'
note particularly your proposi-
ton No. 3, in which YOU say Il
stand for the enforcement of 'tho
Ilvs." etc.
ann glad to note your change OF
heart
Let us review few things pertain
ing TO your ideas Of enforcing tho
/ laws.
will not attempt to 80 into details
/ but ] owe II to those who read this
answer to show few Of the criminal
cases in which you have acted as tho
sole attorney for the defendant
In the county court of Craig coun-
ty, your home, there were a half
dozen cases tried that | win mention
where YOU appeared as attorney.
Case No. 6SS,, you appeared July
nth in the defense of Mabel Thomp-
sen, ON charge Of selling whiskcy.
Case No. 722, YOU appeared in tho
defense of Dave Jones, on oct. 10Th,
sclling whiskey.
Case No. 755, oct. 9th, 1911, Otis
little. selling whisky.
Case No. 75G, tried October eth,
ISL, Otis little and r. w. Pritchett
selling whisky.
Case No. 775, tried January 1st,
1872, Otis TITLE and Charles Webb,
selling whisky.
Ease No. IA, tried January H.,
1912. otis Title and r. ". Prilchett
selling whisky.
am reliably informed that YOU
lost all the cases, and that many Of
the whole number IN which YOU ap-
Pear as attorney YOU have appealed
to tho criminal court of appeals OF
Oklahoma. and in many appealed
cases you have already been revers-
ed
| will refer to a small number Of
the appealed cases, and the Judges
decision, just to give the reader an
idea of your activity as a lawyer in
the defense of those who are charged
with violating the laws.
In the one hundred and twenty
fourth Pacific Reporter, of August
10. 1912, | find that you appeared aa
the only attorney in the appealed
case of Brice charged with selling
whiskcy.
In this case Judge Furman, a
staunch Democrat and one of tho
;hlcst jurists in the southwest, gavl
you scoring that would make any
lawyer who regarded his profession
with pride hang his head in shame
and disgrace.
Judge Furman said: This IS =
plain case Of unhWfully conveying
vhisl,ey. Every question Of law ire
scntcd in the brief of counsel for ap-
RELIANT has been decided adversely
| T. the contentious therein made II
is therefore unnecessary to discuss
ttcm again. II Hwycrs would take
| the trouble to keep themselves in
| formed as to the opinions ~ this
court. they would save much time.
trouble ana expense to themselves
/ end clients and refrain from apocal-
ing cases which have not the shadow
OF chah,e of being reversed. The
Judgment of the lower court Is there.
fore iu an things affirmed
The above WAS concurrcd with
the other two judges sitting.
"Without shadow Of chance" ."
You know so much about running
congress. Jim how does it come you
are so ignorant about The opinions u