Show A j J lit In part of ot this issue of the k Nfl Ns s will bt be found a letter on Cooper 4 u V IV Wo We e have hae received I I others which thIch We wo do not print rInt because e ethl i this ono one covers tho the ground of ot all nil We Wo It lost the writers may think wo we w 4 do 10 not act IMi to let their Ione be known The fhe letter contains nothing new now The Tho plan Is l well elI to all olt stu bats of et co Anti has lias s been ox f i time lime and olid time lime again In III the thel l eret News NeI Tho The subject may prove l to tp some come readers who havo not become with It so wo we jive gho place to that communication The occaSion of ot the correspondence Is Isa ah all a editorial that appeared In tho the News on an April J I In answer to a 11 aCI CI question from rota Iron county We Wo there thoro made it plain enough to who shio can cnn read and understand a It straight I legal proposition that under tinder tho ho laws hass of ot Utah a corporation such na us that lt In Iron hon county must muni provide I that each ench share of ot tho the capital stock stocie have hMO a n vote ote on all aR matters matter per por to the business of at the corpora corporation then tion One Ono of ot our d Os de flounces the tho provision In very ery 11 liS I e The loiter hotter we print today 10 RY that the tho society referred to proposes II Ot to organize or Wider under the tho Koch Itoch plan Both of ot them thim stray from fromi i tho thu point of ot our Information and advice amI frOm rom ram the tM th simple Question que propound propounded ed ell edThe I The Thu parties In Iron county said noth nothing t tag ing In about I out any system different front from frontI tho the common cooperative organizations I In this State Slate All they hey the to know kno tits Willi whether It would be bo valid under our laws has to provide that no shareholder should own more then worth of lOOk block nt at IS U a II share Sharo mid that no TIC milt mat mattar tor tar how much stock he its held he lie should only luwe ono one vote TOte at nt 1111 meeting We Wa the law Ian as It tand and showed that the first provision would hold Rood good but the tho would ouM nut not because auae the tito 4 law la expressly provides to the contrary Expletive ExPletives against t tho the law will wilt not changA It Arguments Argument drawn troll front the tile theold old oid Rochdale system or the California plan have no upon It Schemes us IS to the Iha gradual acquirement of ot one share hare at nt i lIlu are II wide of ot tho the mark marIe The Tho question asked a of at us was bused on a It proposition for lor shares at JS i tho the holder not to have m MO 53 north In nil Our vere to the he point All the c of ot our are an Irrelevant nt to the et Tilt The notion of one of It them that our friends in III lion county can organize under und r the law on corporation ami tl thet t titan linn by b mutual content the incorporator con Mn violate lobl the very cr law unOK und which they t organize and end that thal the courts would ouM take Uko their agreement nt aa as I ta ts n a statutory talu tory provision which Is mandatory m U Ii too feeble to 10 strike with a serious It Is II a Ii pity pit that Ihal go so man many p who wish to appear In print confine to the they the attack or defend |