Oklahoma State Register. (Guthrie, Okla.), Vol. 16, No. 21, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 20, 1907 Page: 3 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Oklahoma Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Gateway to Oklahoma History by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
We on Your Attention to an Accurate History of Prohibition in Am:r!ca.
During the colonial days nearly all of the
colonies from Maine to Georgia enacted, at differ-
ent times laws prohibiting, in various ways, the
manufacture and sale of liquors, and in some in-
stances of tobacco also. These laws were uni-
formly disregarded, and were productive of numer-
ous evil consequences. So impossible wa? it to
enforce them, and so great were the abuses grow-
ing out of them, that they rarely remained upon
the statute books moro than a few years. Such
experiments were repeated from time to time,
always with like results, until towards the Revo-
lution when they were given up.
The colonial experience with prohibitory
laws so Impressed the people that during the first
seventy years of independence little or no effort
was made in the direction of prohibition.
Between 185$ and 1860, however, there was a
revival of prohibitory efforts, and laws were enac-
ted in various States forbidding the manufacture
and sale of Intoxicating liquors.
Maine adopted prohibition in 1851 and still
lias it on her books, but it has never been en-
forced, and in the towns and cities ef that State
the open saloon Is as familiar and public as in
any State in the Union.
Vermont followed Maine in 1852 by the adop-
tion of prohibitory laws, and kept them continu-
ally on her statute books for half a century. In
the effort to enforce these laws severe and unusual
punishments, search without warrant and denial
of trial by jury were resorted to, the accused was
forced to testify against himself, the courts be-
came prosecuting officers, and a process of in-
junction was adopted ruinous to innocent parties
Three convictions were allowed for a single
offense, and informers were stimulated by fees
and shares of fines—and all to no purpose. Intern
perance and contempt of law steadily increased
In 1902, at the end of fifty years, the report of the
United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue
showed that one United States license to sell
liquor was issued for every 120 voters in the
State. In the fall of 1902 a movement was inaugu
rated looking to the adoption of a license system
The campaign which terminated in the overthrow
of prohibiton was in manyi ways remarkable. Ar
rayed on the side of license were the progressive
elements of the State, supported by men in all
walks of life, of the best thought and highest
morals—men profoundly impressed with the
futility «nd bad results of the law. Arrayed
with the prohibitionists were the illicit liquor sel-
lers, who preferred the unrestricted sale under
prohibition to a regulated trade under license.
On four separate occasions during the cam-
paign the voters of the State showed their disap-
proval of prohibition—in the caucuses, in the Leg-
islature, in the election when they voted on the
question direct, and finally when the towns voted
on license, March 3, 1903. On the last occasion
eighty-seven towns—all in the state of any size—
declared for license.
New Hampshire adopted statutory prohibition
in 1855. For thirty-four years every effort was
made to enforce it, with results so far from satis-
factory and so injurious that at a popular elec-
tion for the adoption of a prohibitory amendment
to the State Constitution iheld April 12, 1889, the
amendment was defeated by an enormous ma-
jority. Two counties only in the entire State
gave it majorities.
On March 18, 1903, the lower house of the
Legislature passed a license bill by a vote; of 214
to Wl. A few days later the bill passed the Sen-
ate by a vote of three to one, and on March 27
received the executive approval and license be-
came the law of the State. The cities of the
State stood overwhelmingly for license, their vote
in the Legislature being 121 to 8 in its favor.
More noteworthy is the fact that the rural mem-
bers, taken separately, voted for license in the
proportion of 97 to 76. Representatives of both
political parties were also in a majority in favor
of license.
Massachusetts tried prohibition from 1855 to
1870. She found the law vain and injurious and,
upon the testimony of her governors and best cit-
izens, fatally hurtful to the cause of temperance.
After fifteen years of earnest trial she also repudi-
ated the law, ,and when in April, 1889, a strenuous
effort was made to again engraft prohibition upon
the Constitution of the State it failed. The farm-
ing population threw its weight with that of the
cities against the amendment. One town only in
the Commonwealth gave it a majority.
The campaign was one of exceptional interest,
nhe terms and time of the fight were dictated by
the Prohibitionists. They were ably led and their
cause was advocated by hundreds of speakers.
Tiiey deluged the State with literature and
brought into action an army of workers remark-
able for its numbers. No method known to the
politician was left untried in the efforts to carry
prohibition.
As elsewhere, the prohibitionist tried to make
it appear that all morality was on their side, all
immorality opposed to them. This assumption
failed of its purpose.
The influential journals of the State, almost to
a unit against the amendment, exposed the fallacy
End threw their influence in behalf of license.
Profiting by past experience, they fought with a
vigor born of conviction. The religious papers
joined hands with the powerful dailies, and, mak-
ing conscience of the fight, the Christian Union,
the Congregationnlist and the Christian Register
hurled their thunder against the adoption of the
amendment.
Nor was the. press unsupported by the church.
Many score of the most eminent clergymen of the
Commonwealth, comprising the brains, the dig-
nity and the worth of the ministry of the State,
raited in remonstrances against the adoption of
prohibition. Among the ministers so remonstrat-
ing were such men as Rev. Dr. Phillips Brooks,
Rev. Dr. Savage, Rev. Dr. Brooks Herford, Rev.
I>r. Cyrus Bartol. Rev. Dr. Peabody and the Rev.
blather Conaty, the President of the Catholic
National Total Abstinence Society of America,
and many others of celebrity—men revered for
character and purity of motive. Many of these
great divines preached from their pulpits against
ihe fanaticism. United with them in the crusade
aganst prohibition were five of the seven colleges
of the State. President Eliot, of Harvard, in
an open letter condemned the effort to make men
good by law.
The opposition to the amendment was none
the less remarkable among the lawyers, either
in vigor or in character of those opposed. A pro-
test signed by nearly five hunderd of the ablest
members of the bar, including such names of
national reputation as E. R. Hoar, ex-Governor
Russell, Charles Theodore Russell, ex-Governor
Gardiner, ex-Governor Rice, Patrick Collins, and
others equally known, was sent broadcast through-
out the Commonwealth.
Following the protest of the lawyers came
one from the physicians, headed by Oliver
Wendell Holmes, and subscribed to by nearly all
Ihe eminent doctors of the State.
The merchants and business men, appreciat-
ing the disaster that would follow prohibition,
also united in a remonstrance to which were ap-
pended nearly one thousand names.
I^abor united with capital in hostility to pro-
hibition. The labor leaders, declaring it their be-
lief that the adoption of the amendment would
««rioualy affect the Interests of laboring men,
wgsd its defeat.
The remonstraices, supported by the grett
names signed to them, coincided with the experi-
ence of peopl? who naa tried prohibition and
knew by its fruits what it was Statistics were
not wanting to show its evil effects when it was
formerly the law of the State. These statistics
were above suspicion, as they were prepared un-
der the order of the Governor and Legislature by
Hon. Carroll D. Wright, one of the most eminent
and reliable statisticans of America. Tihey show
the alarming extent of intemperance under prohi-
bition, and tlie rapid decrease of drunkenness
when the prohibititory statute was replaced by a
license law.
The tax question cuts a considerable figure
in the campaign.
The enormous loss of revenue from licenses
and the consequent heavy increase In taxes was
so obvious that tihe prohibitionists did not at-
tempt to argue on this question.
United with the Phohibitionists were the low-
saloon and dive keepers of the State, and these
strove for prohibition with a zeal worthy of
higher motive and a better caus e They worked
for prohibition in order that there might be no
license, and that under prohibition they might
have an opportunity of conducting an illegal and
surreptitious traffic. They could not conduct
such illegal business while other men held license,
because no man would sneak through alleys and
by-ways to patronize them. This fact convinced
earnest and conservative people that prohibition
meant unrestricted traffic, and the amendment
was defeated by 41,552 majority.
In 1853 Rhode Island adopted prohibition and
for ten years gave it the fairest trial possible.
In 1863 the results had been so injurious that the
law was repealed. Not satisfied with the first
experience, she again adopted prohibition in 1SS6.
The second experiment proved far more disas-
trous than the first, and in June, 1889, the people
of the State repudiated prohibition at the polls
by the enormous majority of 18,597 out of a total
vote of less than 38.0m, the vote cast against pro-
hibition being nearly tlitte to one in its favor.
When the law was adopted in 1^86 it had a major-
ity of ,883. Three years of experience had. there-
fore, changed the views of more than four-fifths
of tlie voters of the State on this subject. History
does not present any more striking chauge of
public opinion upon any subject.
As early as 1854 Connecticut placed prohibi-
tion in the organic law of the State, and for
eighteen years used the utmost power of the
Commonwealth for its enforcement, and finally
gave up the experiment In 1S72. InOctober, 1889.
an effort was made to again engraft prohibition
upon the State Constitution, and resulted in an
inglorious failure, nearly three votes to one be-
ing cast against tho measure.
New York passed prohibitory laws ni 18o4,
tried them for two years and gave up the experi-
ment as hopeless.
The first attempt at prohibition in Pennsyl-
vania was made in June, 1889. The question was
thoroughly discussed throughout the State, and
after thorough enlightenment the Keystone
State declared by a majority of 194,556—the great-
est ever cast by any State on any subject since
the foundation of the Union—that the law was not
suited to it or helpful to the cause of temper
""""in 1855 Maryland adopted prohibition. In no
state was the result so disastrous and so freighted
with evils. Bad results followed the law so rap-
idly that after a few months' trial i3 was repealed,
and there has been no disposition on the part ot
that State to repeat the severe lesson it then re-
°eiV<In the same year Delaware adopted prohibi-
tion and tried for two years to enforce it, but
in 1857 gave up the effort and has since shown no
inclination to again try the experiment.
Ohio also repeated the bitter experience.
law in that State, which was adopted in 18j5 was
short-lived and was wiped from the statute books
during the same year.
Among the States which persisted in Ihe ex-
periment of Prohibition Michigan may be enumer-
ated. This State adopted the law in 13o3, and
for twenty-two years endeavored by the whole
power of the State and by extraordinary polltce
laws and regulations to enforce it, only to find
the effort futile. She abandoned the policy in
1875 and when a faction endeavored to ag'Sin
saddle it upon the State in 1887 the peop e over-
whelmed it at the polls . In the words o Gen
R \. Alger "You cannot talk prohibition to the
people of Michigan. They have tried it and know
what a dire failure it is. '
Indiana passed prohibitory measures .ti 18d5.
They were never enforced and were soon aban-
doned. In 1882 a second effort was made to
impose prohibition on the State, but was defeated
by the biugest majority cast in that State on any
question for twenty years.
Nebraska in the same year adopted prohibi-
tion. but its enforcement was found impossible
and It was soon repealed. A second effort was
made in 1880 and was defeated by a decisive ma-
^ The Legislature of Illinois enacted a prohibi-
tory law in 1855, but it was s> unpopular with
the people of the State that in the election in the
fall of the same year both the law and iti chain-
pions were buried.
Twice the effort was made to fasten prohibi-
tion on Wisconsin, and twice the Governor inter-
posed his veto, with the hearty concurrenc of the
people. This was in 1855. Since that time a more
liberal spirit has guided the State.
Under prohibition Iowa witnessed an exodus
of her population, a depression in her commercial
interests, accompanied by great moral retrogres-
sion and a complete revolution in her political
status. The law was enacted in 18S4. S3 cala-
mitous were the results that in obedience to over-
v helming popular demand it was modified and
practically abandoned a few years ago.
Kansas has been under prohibitory laws foi
the past twenty-two years, having adopted them
in 1882. That they are ineffective is demonstrated
by the open saloons and secret joints in all the
towns and cities of the State. That they are detri-
mental to the welfare of the State is proved by
the depression In her commercial, manufacturing
and industrial enterprises, and by the enormous
tax rates prevalent, ranging from four to eight per
cent. That they have not been -beneficial to the
moral tone of the State is evinced by the fact that
thousands of the best men of the State earnestly
advocated the overthrow of the law.
An effort was made in 1887 to put prohibition
into tlie Constitution of Texas and failed by a ma-
jority of 92,661.
A few months later a similar effort was made
in Tennessee, and was likewise overwhelmed by
a majority of 27,693.
In the fall of the same year Oregon submitted
a prohibitory amendment, which shared a similar
fate, fully two-thirds of the voters of the State
casting their ballots against it.
In November, 1888, West Virginia voted on
the question. The subject was thoroughly discus-
sed, investigations into the workings of the law
In other States were carefully made,and a full vote
was polled, resulting in the defeat of the amend-
ment by a majority of 35,574. Only two counties
in the State gave prohibition majorities.
North Dakota ad«t>ted prohibition in 1889 by
a scant majority of 1,159. The experience of the
State has been the usual one. The law has not
been enforced. The sale ot liquors has in no way
Is on foot Inoktax to the overthrow of th« l>*.
South Dakota also adopted prohibition In 1889
by a majority of 3.724. Every possible means con-
trolled by the State were exhausted in an unavail-
ing effort to enforce the law. Tills could not be
done, and. without de reusing the sale of liquors,
a number of serious evils sprang up as an out-
growth of the lav* The development of the State
which had been phenomenal during the ten years
prior to the adoption of the measure, was brought
to a standstill. At tin fall election of 1896 prohi-
bition was overwhelmingly rejected tnd the State
returned to a license system.
It will this be seen that during the past half
century eighteen States have tried the experiment
of prohibition. Fifteen of these States nave
pudlated it as an utter fallrre. Five of the States
tin s repudiating it have overwhelmingly rejected
attempts to foist it on them a second time. Three
States only retain it. In none of these is it en-
forced. Five other States, profiting by tho experi-
ence of sister Commonwealths, have refused to ac-
cept it at all. If experience and history have any
value, these facts ought to be conclusive that pro-
hibition is neither practicable nor desirable from
either a moral or material standpoint.
The experience of communities which have
tried local prohibition or local option differs in no
way from that of the ritj les which have tried pro-
hibition. It has uniformly failed to prohibit and
brought iu its wake a long train of attendant evils
and disaster. Fi in lsiMi to 1903 1,85:! communi-
ties have voted on the subject of local option. In
510 of these communities local option was de-
feated by approximately a two-tihlrds vote. In
the remaining 1.343 communities local option car-
ried by fair majorities in the first instance. In
a few of these communities eleciions have been
held frequently, with r'suits alternating between
license and lccal option.
In 592 comnv nities Ural option is nominally
in fotc2, but in few. if any, is there any real en-
forcement, while the towns have suffered severly
in many ways from tho effects of the measure.
In 751 communities in which at the first elec-
tion local option carried it has since been defeat-
ed. the communities being satisfied by experience
that it was a failure. The aggregate majorities in
favor of local option in all s.uch communities at
the first election on the subject was 108,942. The
eggregate majorities for license in the same com-
munities when local option was repudiated was
159,611.
Notable among the communities adopting lo-
cal option was the city of Atlanta. Iu less than
two years this city saw 1,100 of its houses vacant,
its debt enlarged, its taxes increased, and drnnk-
ness more riotous than had ever before been
known. With the promptness that the case de
manded the city repudiated the law in November,
1887. by a majority which left little hope of ever
again imposing it upon her people.
Prohibition has been no more successful in
Canada than in the United States. A few years
ago a law was passed similar to those in force in
the States of tlie Union, and was given a sincer
and earnest trial. In April, 1889, it was repealed
Every town and city in Canada which voted on
that day rejected prohibition.
Thomas Jefferson knew human nature when
he said: "Tell any man he-Shall not do a thing
or have a thing, and that thing be omes he very
one which he wishes to do or have." The fruit of
only one tree in the Garden of Eden was forbiden,
yet Adam and Eve ate of that tree.
Prohibition and Government Stamps
In any controversy the best proof that can be
offered is facts, and the best facts are those that
come from incontrovertible statistics. Tho most
reliable statistics concerning public affairs are
those compiled by the federal government, be-
MB I W wntK* '
contend that 1 ought to | The speaker of th Crook NiUontl
spend as much advertising my | council is dead. His name was John
church as any merchant in i Franchise, and he was a member of
this citv spends in advertising 1counc" 'rom the time of its
his store." it was the Rev. J 1.. r;?,-!fa.ll3tio^^ed;ate.,y a.fter .thc
Dinger of the First Christian
church of Chickasha, I. T., who
was speaking. Dinger is a be-
liever in the use of printer's ink.
And he has made it pay. When
he went to the city his church
had only 4 >0 members, now it
has three times th.it number.
The Sunday school at the be-
aming of h s pastorate had an
average mrollment of 250, Now
over800 tnen, women and child
ren gather for the school service
each Sunday. On April 21 of
this year the school had an atten
dance of 1,242 and a Sunday
school collection of was
taken up. It was the second
largest Sunday school of the
Christian church in the United
Stats on that Sunday. The only
other having a larger inrollment
was a town in Ohio.
The Rev. Mr. Dinger is a min-
ister that has up-to-date ideas on
religion. He preaches sermons
on the subjects that are being
discussed in the homes add the
newspapers. One ot his favorite
axioms ts that a man who is not
able to give something to the
support of the church is himself
in need of charity from the
church. This, with his adver-
tising, has made his church the
first in the city so far as attend-
ance goes. Although he spends
hundreds of dollars in advertising,
he finds that it comes back to
him in the contribution box on
Sunday.
Public Lands Delegates.
Governor Frank Frant'/, has appointed
the following delegates to attend the
public land convention to be held in
Denver, June 18, 19 and 20th: Wm. j
Grimes, Jerome Harrington, Col.
C. B. Douglas, Muskogee; I. M. Hoi-,
comb, Oklahoma City; A. L. Perry, j
Coalgate; C. E. Hunter, Oklahoma
City; Frank Sush, Blackburn; R. D.
Body, Norman; Paul B. Smith, Atoka;
Civil war, untill his death a few days
ago. He was a fullblood Indian He
could not read English, but could speak
that language with some hesitation.
It is said that he could block any
measure that cama before the council,
if he desired, and that no measure that
he ever got behind failed to pas3.
He was a Union soldier and fought
throughout the Civil war, He drew a
pension after the war for wounds re-
ceived, and when he died he was, at
his own request, burid in the uniform
that he w .r j as a Union soldier.
The funeral wa3 attended by the lar-
gest number of Indians who ever as-
sembled at a funeral in this section.
The funeral oration was by William
r KcCombs, the official interpreter for
the nation, and was deliverd in Creek.
W hen he touched upon the exellent
traits of the dead speaker, he was in-
terrupted time and again by applause
from the audience. The reason for
thi3, as stated by an Indian, was the
fact that Francis had lived seventy-
two years. It was time for his death,
and the dissolution was natural and not
premature. Nature was performing
its regular functions and there wa3 no
reason for unusal regret. Hence the
applause when the fullness of his life
was dwelt upon.
There were twelve pallbearers. Ac-
cording to Indian custom, six of these
carried the coffin half way to the grave
and rested, while the other six carried
it the remainder of the way. Reaching
the grave they marched around it in a
circle, going east first, and then came
back to the side from which they first
approached and deposited the coffin.
This is an old Indian custom arising
from the fact that an Indian always
turns around before he lies down to
sleep.
CASTOniA.
B« r« You Have Always Bougfit
Bignatoxa
of
.P. W. Smith, Newkirk; C. A. McNabb,
cause the federal government has no incentive to Qklahoma cit„ Governor Frantz and
^ U n ci oKundoill m OOnC to Pill- .
other members of the delegation
falsify its records, and has abundant means to em-
ploy expert, highly qualified men to do its work.
The statement is made constantly everywhere
in Oklahoma that constitutional prohibition Is the
only desirable way to regulate the liquor traffic,
iiid that Oklahoma should have constitution? 1
prohibition. The State of Kansas is offered in
support of this demand, the claim being made that
constitutional prohibition in Kansas is a success.
The number of places where liquor is sold
in a state is equal in almost every case to the
number of liquor licenses issued by the federal
government. No persons legally can retail liquor
without a federal license, and knowing how rigid-
ly internal revenue officers inforce the law, liquor
dealers fear to run the risk of engaging in busi-
ness without a federal license. If prohibition is
as successful as is claimed by its advocates, there
would be comparatively few federal liquor licen-
ses issued in a prohibition State.
What are the actual facts concerning the suc-
cess of prohibition in Kansas? For the year end-
ing June :i , 191'!. the internal revenue collector
at Leavenworth issued in the prohibition state of
Kansas 2425 federal licenses to retail liquor deal-
ers, and 594 licenses to retail malt liquor dealers.
For the same period only 1155 federal licenses to
retail liqror dealers, and 123 federal licenses to
retail malt liquor dealers, were issued for Okla-
homa. Think of it, a total of 4019 federal liquor
licenses in prohibition Kansas against 1278 in Ok-
lahoma with open saloons, and a license system!
Almost four times as many in Kansas as in Okla-
homa! Any doubt as to the accuracy of these fig-
ures can be removed by making inquiry of the
internal revenue collector at Leavenworth.
Every government license represents a drink-
ing place, an Illegal one iu a prohibition state,
and a legal one in a state without prohibition
The condition shown to exist in prohibition
Kansas reveals not only a wholesale violation of
law, and that prohibition does not prohibit, but
leads imperatively to the conclusion that public
morals in a state must be tremendously weakened
end injured when such disrespect of law is chronic
as it is in the state of Kansas. Upon the young
the evil effect of seeing law thus trampled under
foot is incalculable.
The tax-payers in prohibition Kansas are
burdened with paying heavily for something they
do not get. They pay thousands of dollars for
the maintenance of a system that encourages vio-
lation of and contempt for law, a system by no
means so effective as one that would not increase
the number of drinking places, and woo!d add
annually hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
revenues of the state, the counties, and the towns,
for the support of highways, schools and public
institutions.
In Oklahoma the average annual cost of all
licenses for a saloon Is about $500. At this rate
the yearly revenue from the number of places in
Kansas now holding retail liquor licenses would
be $2,009,500. Without prohibition, a proven fail-
ure, Kansas would be able not only to increase
her revenues, but the state, counties and towns
could regulate public drinking places, authorized
by law, fixing the hours and conditions under
which they should do business. Instead, the sec-
ret drinking places flourish in Kansas in viola-
tion of law, and without control by the people.
These are the facts about prohibition Kansas.
We ask your serious consideration on the Im-
portant subject. Do the people of the new state
of Oklahoma, want to follow In the foot steps of
Maine, North Dakota and Kansas or with tho 42
states that favor regulation of the liquor traffic
rather than prohibition, that never can and never
will prohibit because its against the best interest
of truo temperance.
Respectfully yours,
I. B. LEVY.
Chairman Citizens League, of Oklahoma.
leaft for Denver Sunday night.
Ask McNabb.
The Araphahoe bee: Some farmers
are arguing that they can't raise pota-
toes, peaches, cabbage and such stuff.
They have never attended the Farmer's
Institute and have never heard one of
McNabb's lecture.
INSTRUCTIVE INTERESTING
Correct Engligh
IIow to use it.
A monthly Magizine devoted to thc
use of English,Josephine Baker,Editor
PARTIAL CONTENTS
Course in Grammar. How to in-
crease One's Vocabulary. The art of
conversation. Shall and will; should
and would. How to use them. Pro-
nunciations (Century Dictionary}
Correct English in the Home. Cor-
rect English in the school. What to
say and v, hat nut I jt ojj. Course in
letter writing o.nd ;."iucti;->*ton.
Twenty daily drills. Business English
for tlie business man. Compound
words, how to write them,
iu English literature. Studies
AGENTS WANTED
$1.00 per year. Send 10 cents for
Sample Copy.
CORRECT ENGLISH, Evanston,Ilf.
Great Lakes
Low Rates
Round trip tourists tipkets are on sale through the
summer to tlie Great Lakes resorts at very low rates
Two or three weeks of outdoor life on Lake Michigan
for instance, will give you a new lease of life.
Plan to spend some time in Chicago—the Great Met-
ropolitan Summer Kesort
The Rock Island offers fast, convenient and luxurious
service. Enters La Salle Station, Chicago—aewest
in the cityand only one on the elevated loop.
Let me quote Rates
H. L, McCRACKEIN. Aqent
Rock Island Lines
Guthrie, Oklahoma
The No. 21 ''Lightning"
Galvanized Iron Conv
pressed Air Sprayer
Is adapted for all kinds of spraying
purposes. No labor required to operate
this machine. Simply fill the tank and
pump in a few strokes of air and the work
is done. It will hold the pressure for
many hours. It holds 4 gallons and will
spray anything in a liquid form. Throws
a fine mist spray or stream, whichever is
desired.
Manufactured by D. B. Smith & Co.
Utica, N. Y. For sale bv
J. J. HOUSTON, Guthrie
TMUOKLA, CITV HDW. CO. Okla. City
W. J. PETTEE <* CO. Oklahoma City
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Golobie, John. Oklahoma State Register. (Guthrie, Okla.), Vol. 16, No. 21, Ed. 1 Thursday, June 20, 1907, newspaper, June 20, 1907; Guthrie, Oklahoma. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc112552/m1/3/: accessed April 19, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.