The Hugo Husonian (Hugo, Okla.), Vol. 14, No. 3, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 22, 1915 Page: 3 of 10
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.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WIVE8 OF BUSINESS
MEN ACCUSED.
Janesvllle, Wis., April 20.—Three
women, said to be the wives of promi-
nent business or professional men of
Ropkford, 111., will be arraigned in
court here tomorrow to stand trial
on charges of grand larceny. The
three were arrested in the early part
of March, after they had made an ex-
tensive "shopping" tour of the prin.
cipal stores of Janesvllle and several
of the neighboring cities. A search
is said to have reveal, d in the wo
men's bags and concealed about their
persons goods sufficient in quantity
and variety to stock an ordinary
store. When taken into custody the
women gave the names of Louise
Nelson, Grace Green and Esther Hal.
cro. Able counsel has been engaged
to conduct their defense.
OF
COMMERCE NEWS
FIRE WASTE WILL BE RE-
DUCED IN TEXAS.
Austin, Tex., April 20—Fire waste
in Texas is expected to be materially
reduoed through the inauguration of
a new system by the state fire insur.
ante commission whereby special fire
inspectors will investigate conditions
throughout the state and report to
the commission recommendations for
the elimination of dangerous fire
traps, etc. The commission says 80
per cent of the Texas fires are pre-
Tentable.
VIOLATIONS OF WORKING
LAWS FOR WOMEN.
Austin, Tex., April 20—Complaints
of alleged violations of the new 54.
hour law for women employes are
reaching the state department of la-
ber dally. The complaints, it is said,
are basied on the mistaken impres-
sion that this law became effective
immediately upon being signed by the
governor whereas it does not become
law until June 19, or 90 days after
adjournment of the regular session
of the Thirty-Fourth legislature.
BEAUMONT TENNI3
TOURNAMENT
Beaumont, Tex., April 2C—The first
tennis tournament in Beaumont for
the season was to begin here tcday
and continue through tomoircw.
Players from Port Artnur, Houston,
Orange, Lake Charles, Jennings and
other places were expected to parti,
cijwte.
RECOMMEND MORE
WORK FOR CLERGY.
Boston, Mass., April 20.—Declaring
that there should be a closer co.oper-
atlon between derrgy and secular
agencies looking to the betterment of
the unemployment situation, and that
there have been too much misunder-
standing, prejudice and hatred be-
tween employer and employe, the
social service commission will sub.
mit an interesting report to the Epis-
copal diocesan convention of Massa.
chusetts when it hold Its 130th annual
session in this city tomorrow. The
salaries of the clergy the incorpora-
tion of the diocese and a church pen-
sion fund are other matters that will
engage the attention of the conven.
tion.
We received advice from the war
and engineering department of the
government at Dallas this morning
saying that a readjustment of the
estimates of the improvement of Red
River at Fulton, Ark., to the mouth of
the Washla river, would be gone over
in order to either carry the project
to completion or abandon it, at least
this is our interpretation of the com.
inunicatlon.
Quite a lot of questions are sub-
mitted for the consideration of our
chaihber and an early report on same
be made to the department, say before
May 15th. From this report we find
that distance from Fulton to Washita
river is -j2 miles, and the appropria-
tion for the clearing of this stream
for navigation above Fulton has
$343,864 and that of this amount there I
has been used on the improvement
$46,924, and that there is available for
this improvement one snag boat and
one quarter boat. As to the value of
this stream for navigation for the
freight and passenger traffic of the
great Red River valley there is no
question and every citizen should be
waked up to this fact and help encour.
age the completion of this work of
dredging and snagging this stream, as
a great reduction in freight will be
made when it Is brought into service
for the rapidly increasing commerce
of the valley.
If we fullly understand this com-
munication it is to be final, that is,
upon reinvestigation if the project
and cost of same is practical, active
improvements will begin at once and
if not the project will be dropped,
and this would be directly contrary
to the great commercial interest of
both Oklahoma and Texas. We have
called the attention before as to what
the Improvement of this stream for
commerce meant in the way of freight
saving mention one in particular cot.
ton. The saving on each bale of cot-
ton on freights will be about one dol-
lar, and If we stop to count the num.
ber of bales raised in proximity with
this stream that would bfc offered for
transportation the saving in freights
for just one year would run up into
th« hundreds of thousands, not to
mention the vast amount or other
freights to be offered in the way of
graiVis and stock. Our chamber will
give this very important matter an
early consideration and make tlia best
report possible t(o males, insisting
that) the project of bringing this
stream into navigation is not be de-
layed under any consideration for it
means too much to all of this country
and our neighboring state across the
river, Texas.
F. W. MACK. Secretary.
SOLDIERS AND OFFI-
CERS SUPERSTITIOUS
Co. 5.1
Bad breath, bitter tastes; dizziness
and a general "no account" feeling
is a sure sign of a torpid lived. HER.
BINE ia the medicine needed. It
makes the liver active, vitalizes the
blood, regulates the bowels and re-
stores a fine feeling of energy and
cheerfulness. Price 50c. Sold by the
Crescent Drug St re.
5.1
BELIEVE IN LUCK. STORY OF
HOW MYSTERIOUS POWER
WORKS IN WAR TIMES.
Officer Tells of How the "Mysterious
Power has protectej him in Batt'e.
Correspondence of The Associated
Press.
Paris, April 20—"Many of us, sol-
diers and officers", says an officers
who has been at the front sines the
beginning of the war, "have faith in
a mysterious power analogous lo in-
tique fatality which disinwen of our
sort. Those that it favors we say are
'in luck'. The greatest iiu:>rddeiice
does not affect their invulnerability.
Others seem fated to sacrifice; if they
escape from a pitched battle, a spent
ball of a fragment of shell will get
them the following dty, miles behlt.d
the trenches, while they are fn ap.
parent security
"This instinctive belief brings a
certain tranquility, net to only to
those who thiuk that thuy are in 'luck'
but to those also wno arc in doubt
they possess a lucky star. No one
escapes his fate', they say. 'If ano
mind to get himself killed. He took
me with him where the bullets were
the thickest. The division was on
the eastern frontier, and alongside
the storm of sharpnel that burst over
our heads the German bombardment
or today are small incidents. Every
other day we went to the first line
and while the m en lay round us fired
at the Germans, we remained erect to
encourage them.
''One afternoon we had passed four
hours under the enemys shells. From
time to time I said to myself 'In 10
minutes in even in 5 perhaps it'll be
my turn'. But we were neither of us
touched. Another day after a very
violent engagement in which we had
been obliged to give way, one of aur
batteries remained stuck between the
two armies. I proposed to reconnoitre
the i>osition to see if it was possible
to bring It back. I Intended to go
alone and come back quickly. But
the general declared he would go
along. It was vain to remark that It
was not his pace, he replied with
some feeling that he had no orders to
receive from me.
Everything went well and we
reached the position of the battery
without any trouble. There remained
only two men, a major and a private
soldier, guarding the battery, firing
with all their energy to make the en.
emy believe that the position fas still
occupied in force. We succeeded in
getting the piece into shape and drag-
ging them out of range, but instead
of following the direct route toward
our lines, the general proposed that
we make a little detour, 'in order",
he sad, 'that the men may not have
the impression that we are retreat-
ing.' We followed a route on the side
of a hill, which during several hun.
dred yards passed over a space of
ebsolutely uncovered ground between
the two firing lines. If I had b en
alone I shoud have covered that space
at double quick. The general, though,
declared that this precipitation would
have produced a bad effect upon the
troops, so it was at a walk that we
crossed this exposed ground offering
ourselves as targets to the German
infantry.
"The balls whistled around us In-
cessantly—so thickly that the leaves
along the route fell as In an autumn
storm. Neither of us reecived a
scartch, neither were our horses
touched. I asked the general if he
did not) think it was marvelous that
wie should have passed unscatned
through this storm of bullets. He
shook his head sadly and said: 'The
bullets don't seem to want me'. As
for me, since that trial there is noth-
ing that surprises me, is I sencerely
bellevis I'm 'in luck' and quite sure
that the Germans will never get me.'
Wednesday, May, 5, 1915.
1626—R. L. Cundlff vs J. H. Adding-
ton et al.
Thursday, May 6, 1915.
1829—The Crane Company vs A. J.
Wright et al.
1840—E. R. Askew vs W. E. Bailey
et al.
1842—H. H. Hale vs Ed. W. Record.
1847—Joel Spring, Jr. vs Winnie R
Spring et al.
1859—J. B. Martin et al vs J. W. Lusk
et al, receivers.
1869—Wichita Loan & Trust Co. vs
Alice Nelson et al.
1878—Calvin Ballard Clay vs Arthur
Bowen.
1880—B. F. Skinner vs Ben L. Ward
et al.
1885—J. W. Jones et al vs Arthur M.
Bowen et al.
1888—R. L. Cook vs Maurice Johnson,
a minor.
1915—First State Bank vs W. 'C.
Davis et al.
1917—Fred M. Hunt vs Ed P. Wil-
liams et al.
1918—Fred M. Hunt vs Ed P. W1L
liams et al.
Friday. May 7, 1915.
1920—John Roden vs Ossie Roden et
al.
1931—Chas. S. Lynch vs S. J. Fulks.
1934—. J. Steen vs Elizabeth Bledsoe
et al.
1945—Mrs.. W. T. Franks et al vs
J. W. Black et al.
1953—J. A. Powell vs W. C. Campbell
et al.
1955—0. A. Simmons vs. Dora Hend-
erson et al
1956—Pauline Fling Richard vs Hans
Richard.
1960—C. H. Howe, receiver vs M. W.
Gross et al.
1965—John Nesbit vs Edward M.
Schwart et al.
1984—First National Bank vs J. I. Cole
et al.
1989—Clyde Faught, trustee vs Arthur
Bowen.
2001—O. A. Simmons vs Melvina Hoi.
ley et al.
1882—Henry Johnson et al vs Leslie
Combs.
1889—Dickson Ripley, guardian vs.
Edwin F. Splnharney.
Saturday, May 15, 1 15,
MOTION DAY.
Monday, May 17, 1915.
1902—Georgianna Roberts vs. T. Gra-
ham et al.
Saturday, May 8, 1(915.
MOTION DAY.
For the stomach and bowel disord.
ers of babies McGEE'S BABY ELIX
IR is a remedy of genuine merit. It
acts quickly, is pure, wholesome and
pleasant to take. Price 25c and 50c
per bottle. Sold by Crescent Drug
TRIAL CALENDER
DISTRICT COURT OF CHOCTAW
COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
MAY SESSION, MARCH 1915
TERM.
MONDAY, MAY 3, 1916.
MOTIONS AND DEMURRERS.
COURT CASES.
Tuesday, May 4, 1915.
317—Jefferson f. Terry vs Wiley W.
Lowery.
679—Chas. Smith et al vs Coblert
Wesley et al.
717—Pine Belt Lumber Co. vs. J. H.
McDaniel.
911—Wiley Homer et al vs Mattie
Buckner, et al.
1107—Varner.Doss Furniture Co. vs
Robert B. Herndon et al.
1171—C. G. Messer vs. W. W. West-
brook.
1237—J. B. Carey vs John West.
1387—In Re Habeas Corpus of Annie
Belvin.
1389—In Re Guardianship of Lena
Crawford, a minor.
1452—John H. Brader vs J. J. Terry
et al.
1530—Josiah Billy et al vs Fred H.
Beattie.
Round Trip
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Go our way—Return another. Stop-
overs and side trips.
TICKETS ON SALE DAILY.
Limit for return three months. For
further Information call on tioket of.
flee or phone 71.
B. D. FALLON, Aflent
is slated for death, what's the good 1593—James W. Lusk et al, receivers,
vs Ed Linthicum Co., treasurer.
1611—Soper Lumber Co. vs. F. R.
Peavy and J. J. Thomas.
1628—Alice Bench, a minor et al vs
J. S. Moore et al.
1645—F. £. Finerty vs Josephine B.
Latimer et al.
1701—W. D. Clarke vs J. C. Gibbons
et al.
1718—Daniel Rose vs J. F. Reynolds.
administrator.
1724—City of Hugo vs G. Earl Shaf.
fer.
1739—A. J. Steen vs J. W. Dawley et
al.
1752—P. V. Bowen vs S. C. Burnett
et al.
1758—W. S. Reeves vs Arthur Latn-
brecht et al.
1769—J. M. Criswell vs S. H. Cris.
well et al.
1799—Clem Lumber Co. vs W. C. Mc-
Alister et al.
of taking precautions; the bullet that
Is intended for me will find me.'
"Certain cases seem to bear out
this superstition. One of them was
related by an officer of the general,
tall, cool almost as phlegmatic as an
Englishman behind his eyeglasses,
and so careful to exagerate nothing
that he seems to contemplate the
most tragic events with the wrong
end of his spy glass.
"I ought to have been killed a hun-
dred times' he told me. 'At the mo-
ment of the general mobilization
was in the staff of the general of
division, to whom I was personaly at.
tached for several yearn of very close
collaboration; he treated me some,
what as his persontl aid-de-camp. I
went everywhere with him. A few
days after the declaration of war he
was informed of the death of his
wife, whom I knew he adored. He
CIVIl JURY CASES.
Monday, May, W, 1915.
1254—State of Oklahoma ex rel. vs
George Hughes et al.
1280—Anna R. McElveny vs F. D. Cop-
ping.
1296—In Re Right of way over land
of H .H. Hale.
1449—Edward Thompson Co. vs A. M
Works et al.
1480—John T. Reeves vs T. G. Pemel-
ton.
1500—Lawyers Co.Operative Publish.
ing Co. vs J. M. Willis et al,
1553—Board of County Commission,
ers vs Oklahoma State Bank
et al.
1585—State of Oklahoma, ex rel.
W. P. Dodson et al.
1587—State of Oklahoma, ex rel.
Will Cowan et al.
1588—State of Oklahoma, ex rel.
Eff Cooper et al.
1590—American Investment Co. vs J.
H. Fink et al.
Tuesday, May 11, 1915.
1609—J. W. Chester assignee vs Rat-
liff Township.
1648—C. L. Webb vs Robert S. Banis-
ter.
1656—Charles M. Neal vs John A.
Armstrong et al.
1674—Alfred A. Whitman vs Antlers
American et al.
1677—Golden Rule Grocery Co.
O. E. Kinlock.
1704—Mitchell Tims, guardian vs A.
W. Teel.
1711—R. L. Scott vs D. T. Pardue.
1748—Riley Conley vs W. B. Biddle et
al, receivers.
1749—Arthur Bowen vs J. L. Gilbert.
Wednesday May, 12, 1915.
1766—L. A. Wlygal vs S. H. and J. H.
Keil.
1793—Impson Wllllston vs G. W. Dodd
et al.
1802—Sophie Nanomantubbee vs. V.
Bronaugh et al.
1808—J. W. Milam vs Smith-Maurer
Bros, et al.
1811—A. L. Singer & Co., vs J. L.
Kimmel et al.
1815—M. P. Pointer vs Board of Coun.
ty Commissioners.
1822—U. S. Williams vs H. C. Mc_
Murtray.
Thursday. May 13, 1915.
1838—W. T. Rawleigh Mediclal Co. vs
J. M. Brown et al.
1848—R. P. Hildreth vs John T.
Reeves et al.
1852—State National Bank vs L. W
Hill.
1853—C. H. Howe, receiver vs Rich-
ard Merrick et al.
1867—Hugo Cotton Oil Co. vs James
W. Lusk, et al., receivers.
Friday, May 14, 1915.
1871—Conservative Loan Co., vs Wil-
lie Williams et'al.
1874—Paul M. Herring et al vs. Fred
Dennis.
1877—Dawe Thomas vs City of Hugo.
1881—Myrtle Susie Cowen vs Eloazo
Tomlin.
pendages have been denied, with the
result that many contaminate what,
ever substances they consequently
visit within a certain length of time.
Sa the next time a fly lights on your
table to sample your food you may
well wonder whether it has just left
some filth outside which it is deposit,
ing on what you are prepared to eat.
~ i But worse than this ia the transfer.
v? and s-1 ence due t0 the feeding habits of the
fly. As flies are invariably accustom,
ed to feed on infected matter, the
micro-organisms are taken into the
stomach of the fly and are deposited
on our food either by defecation (so
called "fly specks") or by vomit spots.
Very frequently the fly regurgitates
its food from the crop in the form of
large drops half the size of its head.
When it deposits this drop it leaves
an opaque, l!ght.colored spot as dis-
tinguished from the brown excreta
known a. "flyspecks." The fly does
not always deposit the regurgitated
fluid. One fly under consideration by
Hewitt, the etomologist, from whom
these facts are taken, was seen alter-
nately and regurlarly to regurgitate
and absorb a drop of fluid eight times,
each regurgitation and obsorption oc.
cupying one and one half minutes.
This makes the fly doubly dangerous,
ror micro-organisms may be given
off by the fly either in the "fly
specks" or the "vomit spots."
Flies art"icially fed and kept In
captivity are able to contaminate
milk upon which they feed for sev.
eral days. Everything goes to prove
that no fly is free from germs from
the time it draws itself out of the
paparium to enter the winged state
until its death.
We do not catch typhoid, we swal.
low it. This is an essentiol disease
caused by the entrance of the typhoid
bacill into the digestive system by
way of food or drink. In the mili-
tary camps of the Roer -war and in
our Spanish-American war 30 per cent
of the deaths wers due to typhoid
—flies prove as deadly as bullets.
Exact experiments have proved that
the fly is able to carry the typhoid
bacillus in a viable condition either
externi-illy, that is on its body and ap.
pendages, or internally, where its
length of life ic increased consider.
aT>ly. The more usual woy of Infec
ticn is from the alimentary tract
of the fly either by the vomit or fecal
spots. The 'yphoid bacillus has been
recovered from flies twenty.three
days after they have been infected
by feeding on typhoid infected mat-
ter.
When we take Into consideration
that flies defecate from three to elev-
en times per hour, and vomit from
six to fifteen times an hour, (the rate
depending upon the temperature and
food I, some idea will be gained of
the manner and extent to which ty.
phoid spreads.
To be continued.
MRS. J. W. SCROGGS,
Publicity Secretary, C. C. C.
F. R. R. Co., et al.
1914—Pearl Taylor vs. Mrs. Dora C.
Riggs.
1919—D. A. Stovall vs. G. W. Dodd.
1937—Mid-Continent Life Ins Co.
vs H. E. Bryan et al.
1942—G. A. Maxfield vs R. L. Cook.
Tuesday, May 18, 1915.
1944—Jake Easton et al vs William
Ward et al.
1947—C. H. Howe, receiver vs W. J.
Ervin.
1949—J. L. Ray vs G. W. Clowse.
1951—Emma Bloom vs Modern Order
of Praetorians.
1954—Boswell, Lynch & Fry vs Bur.
goyne Bros.
1858—D. F. Jenkins vs John A. Arm-
strong.
Wednes°ay, May 19, 1915.
1963—State National Bank vs J. F.
Bornmann et al.
1964—Ella Ballentine vs A. B. Ballen.
tine.
1968—R. M. Price et al vs James Mill-
er.
1973—F. Marckle vs. Alpha James.
1975—A. R. Draper et al vs Joe Har.
key et al.
1977—R. L. Carter vs T. A. Randolph.
Thursday, May 20, 1915.
1980—G. H. Schoellkopff Saddlery Co.
vs S. L. Oliver.
1981—M. W. Gross vs W. E. B. Leon,
ard et al.
1983—Rothschild & Company vs R. E
Rowells.
1986—Annie B. Fry vs John A. Arm-
strong.
1987—Miller-Nelson Co. vs Mrs. L. S
Tam.
Friday, May 21, 1915.
DIVORCE CASES.
1436—Aaron Pickens vs Sarah Pick-
ens.
1442—Ada Sneed vs Tom Sneed.
1554—B. R. Sessums vs Rosa L. Ses.
sums.
1559—Robert Oscar Leonard vs Mae
Belle Brown Leonard.
1568—Mose W. Wall vs Fannie Wall.
1594—Herman Keil vs Mamie Keil.
1625—Melvina Holly vs George Holly.
1629—Mahaley Edwards vs Jim Ed.
wards.
1651—Minnie Greathouse vs Jim
Greathouse.
1684—Verdle Sparks vs George
Sparks.
1693—Ida Allgood vs F. P. Allgood.
1699—Jessie Kerby vs Charles Kerby.
1730—Hattie Stephens vs George
Stephens.
1745—J. G. HatChell vs Nora Hatchell.
1753—Nookie Black vs Tom Black.
1754—Bessie Ewat vs Harry Ewat.
1760—Annie Dooling vs Ed Dooling.
1800—I. R. Smith vs Mary Smith.
1816—Susan Putnam vs S. G. Putnam.
1823—Gladys K. Lusk vs W. L. Lusk.
1825—Mary E. Rogers vs R. N. Rogers.
1827—E. L. Wright vs. J. J. Wright.
1843—Jesse McDaniel vs Ozella Mc-
Daniel.
1854—A. L. Gibson vs Minnie Gibson.
1887—Essie Himoubbe vs Larbin HL
moubbe.
1890—Ellie E. Stinson vs E. A. Stin.
son.
1906—Abbie Gilliam vs Allie Gilliam.
1910—Essie Goss vs H. L. Goss.
1926—Delia King vs Charley King.
1932—Aggie Gipson vs P. G. Gipson.
1939—J. W. Sandifer vs Edna Sandi-
fer.
1950—J. L. West vs Emma B. West.
1969—Agnes Nelson vs George Nelson.
1978—C. S. Corbin vs Hannah Corbin.
1985—Mandv Titus vs Rilie Titus.
1991—W. S. Choat vs Alice Choat.
1992—Mittie Epps vs Clem Epps.
1994—J. H. Sullivan vs Belle Sullivan.
1999—Ebby Evans vs John Evans. j
2012—Rebecca Grindstaff vs Robert E. [
Grindstaff.
OUR ENEMY—THE FLY.
House flies are something more
than an Irritant to elderly gentlemen,
and an object of interest to babies.
Filth and flies are practically synony-
' mous terms. They are a serious en-
ace to the health of a community. To
such an extent was this appreciated
by the capital city of one of our states
that the mayor was elected on ac.
count of his anti-fly activity.
Investigation into military camps
in the United States during the Span-
ish Americtn war, and later in the
British camps during the Boer war
proves that under the necessary con.
ditions flies were the most important
factors in the dissemination of ty.
phoid fewer. As a means of transfer-
ence. the body of the fly is most ex-
cellently adapted, being thickly cloth-
ed with hairs of varying length. Its
legs which chiefly come in contact
with the infective materials upon
TO TRY EX-UNiTED
STATES SENATOR.
Wilmington, Del., April 20.—In the
feedral court here today, former
United States Senator Richard R.
Kenney and five co.defendants were
arraigned for trial under Indictments
charging them with having conspired
to commit an offense against the
United States by using the mails to
defraud in connection with the con-
duct of the business of the Home Fire
Insurance company, the American
Fire Insurance company and the Mer-
cantile and Marine Fire Insurance
company. The specific charge against
the defendants is conspiracy to de.
fraud by selling policies in companies
which were without assets. This is
the second trial of the case for sev-
eral of the defendants. At the first
trial one of the defendants was dis.
missed on one charge and three of the
others pleaded guilty to two counts in
the indictment against them.
MARSH KELLY GAVE UP.
Negro Who Shot Will Johnson at Creo
Surrendered.
Marsh eKUey, the negro who shot
Will Johnson at the creosote plant
Sunday and escaped, gave himself up
to Undersheriff A. Wollf late Monday
evening. He was taken into the jus.
tice court where his bond was made
at $250 and he was turned loose
awaiting trial.
EIGHT ARE HELD
AS NIGHT RIDERS.
Stuttgart, Ark., April 20.—Eight ar-
rests were made Sunday night by
Sheriff Lafargue and posses in night
riding depredations that have been
committed recently in this county
against negroes in an effort to drive
them out of the county. This makes
a total of 15 arrests in two weeks the
depredations have been in progress.
Many more arrests are predicted. One
... .of the negroes who refused to heed
which it walks, resembles minature | the warning to leave the country was
brushes from which no cleaning can murdered and his body burned in a
remove the organisms once these ap. cabin.
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.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this issue that match your search.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.
McDonald, M. P. The Hugo Husonian (Hugo, Okla.), Vol. 14, No. 3, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 22, 1915, newspaper, April 22, 1915; Hugo, Oklahoma. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc141398/m1/3/?q=j+w+gardner: accessed July 6, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.