["OBSERVER" ATTACKS TELEGRAM ARTICLE RE TEMPERANCE LAW.]
Winfield Courier, JUNE 16, 1881.
WINFIELD, June 12, 1881.
Some days ago the Telegram published a remarkable article on the new temperance law, and one is forced to the conclusion that the gushing temperance advocate of last fall's campaign is about to go back on his record and join the red nosed, bleary eyed. And some visaged rabble who are just now holding up their hands in holy honor at that law which forbids the sale of intoxicants for sacramental purposes; is it possible that a chance to rent the basement of his new hotel at a big price for a Beer and Billiard saloon is working on his judgment?
And that reminds me that it is one of the stereotyped assertions now almost universally indulged in by men opposed to temperance legislation "that if a vote was again taken on the constitutional amendment, it would be defeated," and some men who voted for it now say they would not. The latter class no more can afford an answer, there can be but one answer and that is they were opposed to the principal at heart and voted for it because they were too low and cowardly to stand up like men and proclaim their convictions in the face of popular clamor.
That man who finds fault with the law and at the same time asserts that he is in favor of temperance, either has not examined the law, or he is an infamous liar. To have honestly voted for the amendment and be in opposition to the law is impossible; the law is the amendment, nothing more and nothing less.
And when men prate about the law being too strong, they proclaim their knavery or else the want of sense. The people legally adopted the amendment; the Legislature in obedience to that will passed the law, and it is the duty of all good men to stand up for its enforcement, and the county officials should zealously search out, arrest, try, and convict every malefactor.
The legislature, in passing this law, has placed the question of its enforcement in the honor of the people, and they have elected officers whose duty it is to hunt up violators and bring them to justice.
And this reminds me that your correspondent has been informed that with the exception of your city marshal, John Burris, no officer has informed our county attorney of any violations. And yet, Burris, I am informed, voted against the amendment, but does his duty as an officer while Shenneman and the other officers all voted for it and file no complaints. How is it that Mr. Shenneman finds criminals in every state in the Union, but can't find any violations of this law with Frank Manny selling beer day in and day out and openly at that, and everybody knows it.
It is time that the people call a halt and give every officer who fails to find violations of their law a rest. This law means something, and the sooner our officials wake up to the fact the better, and those who are awake to it ought to be supported, and those who are not ought to be bounced.
I have been a supporter of our sheriff, but I will not be again unless he can catch whiskey outlaws as well as horse thieves when rewards are paid. It will be in order now for some idiot to yell, "Why don't you inform the officers?" To which I reply in advance, "I have, with the people, elected officers to do such work and they must do it." And that officer who shines that he knows of no violations lies or has shut his eyes on purpose to avoid seeing. This temperance fight is not over; it has not commenced as it were. It will not stop now, but will go on until the object is accomplished, or Kansas goes back to her rum holes.
[SHERIFF SHENNEMAN: EDITORIAL.]
Winfield Courier, JUNE 23, 1881.
We published an article last week in which was a kind of criticism on Mr. Shenneman, and this with some other paragraphs that have appeared, have led some to suppose that the COURIER is opposed to him for a second term. But such is not the case, and we wish here to say in justice to Mr. Shenneman that we consider him a sheriff of rare qualifications, one of the very best in the state. He is wide awake, energetic, and faithful, and at the same time does his duty in that manner which will be least unpleasant, expensive, and disagreeable to those with whom he has to deal; in short, he is efficient and kind hearted. There is no man whom we can support with more cordiality, as the nominee of the republican party for sheriff this fall.
So far as the criticism of the correspondent last week is concerned, we do not see as any other officer or any other man has much to brag of about finding evidence to convict of selling liquor in violation of law. There is no use in making arrests without the evidence to convict.
Winfield Courier, June 23, 1881.
Mr. Frank Manny was arrested and brought before Justice Kelly Tuesday evening charged with selling beer in violation of the law. It will doubtless take several days to try this case, and we express no opinion as to the truth of the charge, desiring to avoid prejudicing the case in any way. We have no ill will against Mr. Manny, but we hold that the law must be enforced and whoever violates it should suffer the penalty. We do not apprehend that jurymen here will perjure themselves to screen a man who is proved guilty. If any such should appear, we shall give his case due publicity.
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
The Manny trial is putting the attorneys on their metal and will show the quality of their temper.
Mr. J. P. Mussleman, one of the live farmers of Silverdale township, made us a pleasant call Saturday.
Capt. Jas. Shaw made us a pleasant call Wednesday morning. He has been a reader of the COURIER for several years.
S. P. Strong of Rock came down to the "Hub" Tuesday. He came in just late enough to escape being caught as a juryman.
When the list of witnesses for the State in the Manny trial was called, one of the attorneys for the defense promptly answered, "Present!"
MARRIED: At the Baptist parsonage, Winfield, June 22nd, 1881, by Rev. J. Cairns, Mr. Arial Fairclo and Miss Ida Creps, both of Arkansas City.
It was dangerous to attend court Monday. The moment a new face appeared in the doorway, Sheriff Shenneman would call out: Take the jury box, please."
Judge Campbell and Attorney JenningsAlocked horns@ several times during the Manny trial. It is needless to remark that the County Attorney came out ahead.
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
The "volunteer counsel" assisting the state in the Manny trial made, or attempted to make, an argument Wednesday morning. His first sentence contained a broad and unmistable inference that the gentleman preceeding him had lied. The air for a few moments was blue, and as the Attorney so attacked came forward and asserted that the "volunteer counsel" was "a contemptible little puppy and his implications not worthy of notice," ye reporter slid under the table. The efforts of the Sheriff and court finally quelled the storm, and peace and quiet was once more restored.
The jail is about full of boarders since Sheriff Shenneman brought in his forger. There are now six of the boys in limbo with four months until court. Willie Fogg is in for horse stealing; Theodore Miller for larceny; James Jackson for horse stealing; Jefferson McDade for stealing money; Richard Oldham for threatening to assault and shoot one Fullerlove, at Arkansas City; and Richard Lennox, Alias Haywood and Alias St. Clair for forgery. The last is perhaps the most noted criminal ever brought in to the state, having served several terms in the Illinois penitentiary, and has operated all over the U. S. and Canada.
[NOTE: EARLIER ARTICLE CALLED HIM "LENNIX."]
The interests in the Manny trial during Tuesday through the proceedings were mostly dry discussions of law, were deep, and evinced the feeling taken by our citizens in this first attempt to enforce the prohibition law in Cowley county. The result of the prosecutions at Topeka and Lawrence, and the difficulty of getting jurors that would convict, has awakened an interest in the probable outcome of a case here, this being the leading temperance county in the State. Many ladies were present during the afternoon and watched the proceedings closely.
[THE MANNY TRIAL.]
Winfield Courier, JUNE 30, 1881.
Winfield has been in a fever of excitement for the past few days over the arrest of Frank Manny for violating the prohibition amendment in selling beer. The trial was first brought before Justice Kelly, but the defense secured a change of venue to Justice Tansey's court. Monday was the day set for the trial and early in the day numbers of spectators gathered to see the opening of the case.
The array of legal talent retained on the part of the defense was simply appalling: Judge Campbell, with eight years' experience on the bench; J. E. Allen, one of the most precise and painstaking lawyers at the bar; O. M. Seward, the leading temperance attorney of the southwest; and Messrs. Soward & Asp, gentlemen of high standing at the bar. Certainly Mr. Manny should feel that his interests will be protected as far as the law is concerned.
County Attorney Jennings appeared for the State.
The hall opened at 9 o'clock, the jury was called, and the examination for jurors commenced. This proved to be a tedious matter as most everyone called had either formed or expressed an opinion, or had conscientious scruples that unfitted him for sitting in the case. Generally when a juror went into the box thinking he was unprejudiced, he found that he was mistaken before the lawyers got through with him. Up to noon thirty-five jurors had been called and twenty-nine of them proved to be incompetent.
After dinner the examination of jurors was continued and soon developed into a lively fight. The question was raised of whether a member of a temperance organization was a competent juror in the case, on which Judge Campbell made an exhaustive argument, insisting that such a person was not and could not be competent to sit in the case. County Attorney Jennings replied in a brief but convincing manner. He stated that if Judge Campbell's theory was correct, a horse thief could be tried only by persons not opposed to horse stealing, and that persons who were in favor of enforcing the laws would not be competent jurors in criminal cases.
The court sustained the County Attorney, and the juror was passed. The jury was finally empanelled at 5 o'clock Monday evening.
The following is a list of the jurors: A. G. Wilson, James Bethel, E. P. Harlen, Elam Harter, I. N. Holmes, E. P. Kinne,
J. H. Mounts, T. H. Jackson, T. S. Smith, Wm. Trezise, W. L. Morehouse, and W. I. Shotwell.
The court met Tuesday morning and upon calling the jury, it was found that Mr. T. W. Jackson, of Vernon township, was absent. An attachment was issued by the court and the sheriff started for Mr. Jackson's home. The court then adjourned until one o'clock. About two o'clock the sheriff arrived with Mr. Jackson, who was quite ill, and asked to be discharged. The court ruled that he must serve unless positively unable.
The case was then opened by a statement from the County Attorney. Judge Campbell then arose on a "question of privilege" and asked the court to rule that the state use but three wit-nesses for the proving of any one fact. After much discussion the court overruled the request. The defense then moved that the case be dismissed, alleging that the information did not state facts sufficient to warrant any action. After another lengthy argument, the court promptly overruled the motion.
County Attorney Jennings then attempted to open the case, when the defense again objected and moved that the case be dismissed because "the complaint was not sworn to by a responsible party." Judge Campbell then made an exhaustive argument on a constitutional point. Mr. Jennings answered Judge Campbell at considerable length, and was followed by Mr. Asp for the defense, who closed the argument. The objection was overruled and duly excepted to, and the state proceeded with the examination of the first witness, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller testified that he resided in Winfield, and that he knew where Mr. Manny's brewery was. He was asked if he had been in Mr. Manny's brewery between the first day of May and the 21st day of June, the latter being the date the indictment was made. The defense objected on the ground that the state should confine its proof of offense to the date mentioned in the indictment: the 12th day of June. On this objection Mr. Allen spoke, and cited authorities, though none of our Supreme court. The State replied with Kansas authorities bearing directly upon the point. Mr. Asp closed the argument on this point, and the court overruled the objection.
The witness was allowed to answer the question; but instead of doing so, he laughed. The mouths of the audience cracked assunder, and his Honor got down under the counter to hold his sides. Witness then affirmatively answered the question. He also stated that he had drank something on Manny's premises between those dates. The State asked in what building the drink was obtained. Before this question was answered, Judge Campbell requested his honor to instruct the witness that he was at liberty to refuse to answer any question that would tend to criminate himself. This request raised argument and the court adjourned to meet Wednesday morning, when the question will be discussed.
Court convened promptly at 6 o'clock and Judge Soward opened the argument. Numerous authorities were cited, among which were the celebrated Burr and Morgan cases. County Attorney Jennings replied in an extended argument, citing a large number of
At noon, Wednesday, we go to press. As yet the case has not been fairly opened, the defense bringing up point after point for the decision of the court. Each point must be argued exhaustively, which takes time and how long no one can tell. The case will be fought step by step. The council for defense will leave no stone unturned, and Attorney Jennings, although bearing up under a terrible pressure, will melt them at every turn. Our reporter will attend the trial throughout and a complete record of the proceedings will appear in our next issue.
[JUDGE CAMPBELL: THEN AND NOW.]
Winfield Courier, JULY 7, 1881.
At a temperance meeting in Winfield during the time that the prohibitory amendment was before the people, Judge Campbell made a very effective speech, declaring himself in favor of the amendment and pledging it his support. He was at that time a candidate for District Judge. Since then he has experienced a change of heart. He now esteems this measure so fraught with peril to the liberty of the people that he has become the "evangelist" of the liquor dealers, serving in their cause as attorney "without money and without price."
Has Judge Campbell become a living illustration in support of his most effective argument when a temperance speaker? He then said, in substance, that the great danger to the country under the then system of managing the liquor business was that it gave the saloon such supreme influence over a large class of citizens and voters, that when a man became a slave to his appetite for liquor he became the toady of the liquor seller, he felt obliged to laugh at all his stale jokes, and do his bidding at the polls, and that the worst calamity that could befall such a man in his own estimation was to offend the power which controlled what was the source of all his happiness on earth. Judge Campbell illustrated and amplified this in a most forcible manner.
He said in a courtroom recently that he had drank more liquor since May 1st than ever before in his life. Public opinion credits him with having been a perfectly fearless follower of his theory, that the people who use the most liquor are the most capable and efficient, before the first of May. It is possible that Judge Campbell has reached that point in his career as a drinking man when for the sake of making sure of the supply for this growing appetite he becomes the volunteer toady and advocate of the liquor interest? It looks a little as if in his missionary zeal he is about to become a living illustration of the danger resulting from the unrestrained traffic in liquor which he has himself pointed out to the people.
[THE MANNY TRIAL: EDITORIAL.]
Winfield Courier, JULY 7, 1881.
On Tuesday last the jurors in the case of the state against Frank Manny, for selling intoxicating drink in violation of law, having been out fifteen hours and failing to agree, were discharged by the court, and a new trial of the case was set for Monday, July 18th.
As the case is still pending, we shall yet be chary with our comments, but may with propriety say that so long as the defense was a denial of such sales, the defendant was entitled to patient hearing of his defense, and all the advantages which the law will give any one accused, but when the defense assumes the position that the law ought to be treated with contempt. because of its alleged atrocity, it amounts to a confession that the law has been violated. It seemed that the defense did not rely much upon the facts of the case, but upon the skill of the attorneys in inventing, and urging, various kinds of motions, objections, and dodges, by which they might obtain a ruling which would keep out evidence.
Such objections, one after another, were sprung upon the prosecuting attorney and the court, with such bewildering persistency and energy, that it was hardly possible, among the multiplicity of correct rulings by the court, that they should not have extorted one bad ruling which would nearly accomplish their purpose.
We think the jurors should not have been discharged so soon, by at least three days, unless they agreed.
Justice Tansey evidently intended to make correct rulings in every instance, was honestly trying to support the law; but with such an overpowering array of legal talent, headed by the man whose opinion has been taken here for law for eight years, it is credited to him that his rulings were nearly all eminently correct. As we cannot speak near so favorably of some of the witnesses, and some of the jurors, we conclude by saying that it is the general verdict that the county attorney did himself proud.
MILLINGTON THEN HAS ANOTHER LONG EDITORIAL ABOUT "TRIAL BY JURY" AND VENTS HIS WRATH ABOUT THE PRESENT SYSTEM..."The jury system as existing under our laws and descended to us from a semi-barbarous age of castes, may now be called an institution by which law breakers may escape conviction and punishment." HE GOES ON AND ON! I SKIPPED.
Winfield Courier, JULY 7, 1881.
Rev. Fleming was in the city Thursday, and listened to the closing argument in the Manny trial.
Messrs. Tipton & O'Hare have formed a co-partnership in the practice of law. They will make a strong team.
Mr. C. C. Holland returned Tuesday from Silver Cliff, Colorado, where he has been servicing as principal of the schools.
MONEY TO LOAN: On improved farms, in sums of $300 and upwards, at the lowestrate of interest, by A. H. GREEN.
Mr. J. C. Franklin, formerly a resident of this city and who removed to Oakland, California, arrived Monday and will spend the summer with us.
The report was current Monday evening that Mr. J. B. Lynn was fatally injured on the road to Kansas City. He makes as lively a corpse as they have ever had on the road.
The Timber Creek bridge was not accepted by the board last week, owing to some defects in putting it together. Ten days were allowed the contractors for perfecting the work.
The commissioners met in regular session Tuesday morning and will finish their labors today. The business at the term will not be large. A full report will appear in next week's paper.
George Mann met with an accident on the 4th. He was wondering through Island Park rather late in the evening and collided with an old stump. He is still able to finger electricity.
News came to us that a man was killed at Oak Valley, Montgomery County, on the 4th for saying that Garfield's assassination was a good thing. He was shot to pieces by the infuriated people.
[THE MANNY TRIAL.]
Winfield Courier, JULY 7, 1881.
THE EVIDENCE IN BRIEF.
Mr. Miller was then asked what he had drank at Manny's. He stated that he had called for "ginger" and that he probably got what he called for. That it was about the color of barn-yard drainage, that he had bought a quart, and had paid twenty cents for it, that he had never become intoxicated on it, and had never drank more than two glasses at a time. He was then asked when he had heard that "ginger" was being sold there.
The defense objected, but the objection was overruled. The witness then said that it was about the middle of May. He stated that he had never seen anyone become intoxicated on this drink. That he lived several hundred feet from the brewery; that it had about the same effect as lemonade.
Mr. Jochems was then called. He had been at Manny's brewery twice since the first of May. The defense then objected on the ground that the prosecution should confine itself to the sale already proven and the point was ably argued by Mr. Asp. Mr. Troup assisting the state, spoke for ten minutes, and Mr. Asp closed the argument. The objection was sustained and the court held the prosecution to the sale proven to Miller and allowed to introduce testimony to prove the drink known as "ginger" was intoxicating, providing no date or other sale than the one made to Miller was fixed by date. Mr. Jochems then testified that he had drank "ginger" and that it produced no effect on him.
was then called. He testified that he had been to Manny's with a friend; that the friend had bought "ginger" and they both drank it. That he thought it was intoxicating; that it had effected him and had considerably intoxicated his friend; that it looked like beer.
Mr. Dewey stated that he had drank "ginger" at Manny's; that it had no effect on him; that he noticed symptoms of intoxication upon the friend who went with him; that the friend had a half pint bottle of liquid; that he procured a bottle at the brewery.
swore that he had been at Manny's brewery and had drank "ginger" there. Only one glass because he was afraid it would make him tight. Looked like beer; didn't taste like beer; saw another party intoxicated.
W. W. SMITH
Testified that he had drank "ginger" at Manny's which looked like beer, but had not much foam, and made him tight. Was there several times, first at about nine o'clock, was not intoxicated when first went, was not intoxicated much at any time.
Cross examination: Drank ginger. Had drank nothing else that day but a dose of medicine put up by Dr. Cole for flat bottle. I took two swallows during the day; kept it in my side pocket. Did not give it to anyone during the day; offered to trade my watch for a pony, and do not think I offered any man a drink from bottle. Had bottle of "ginger" which I got from Manny and man drank from. Was not positive was at brewery three times. Think two of us drank quart or half gallon, went to brewery second time. Did not know whether he got dinner or not. Stayed at brewery longer third time than first times. Think drank more than at other times. Was intoxicated that day. Got in that condition about nine o'clock, and do not think can recall all that happened. Others afterward recalled things that I had said and done that I knew nothing of. Felt next day all used up and knew I had been drunk. Was arrested that day for being drunk. Had trial before Justice Kelly. Has no interest in case. Has been offered no consideration to testify in case. Got medicine from Dr. Fleming instead of Dr. Cole. Is in the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor to some extent. Had no other bottle except medicine and bottle of "ginger" and drank nothing but "ginger that day."
was then called. The defense then introduced the objection that the prosecution had introduced all the witnesses necessary to prove the character of the liquor known as "ginger." This objection was made on Tuesday and overruled by the court. The court again overruled the objection. The witness stated that he was familiar with the location of Manny's brewery, that it was located on the east side of section 21, township 42, range 4.
Cross examination: Was not surveyed; had never found corners. Did not know whether brewery was in frame or stone building. Was familiar with records of county; had seen in register's office. Had examined records in relation to this particular tract.
had obtained from Mr. Manny a drink known as "ginger." Color dark red, darker than beer. Did not know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had no effect upon him. Had drank three or four glasses at once. Had drank beer but had no effect on him. Did not know whether "ginger" was fermented liquor or not. Did not know what fermented liquor was. Had foam like beer. Went out to brewery because wanted something to drink. "Ginger" was not a common drink.
Cross examination: Had foam something like cider or soda water.
W. A. SMITH
had been to Manny's. Thinks it was near the Walnut. Had drank "ginger." Was a kind of "maroon" color. Darker than beer. Did not know whether it was fermented or not. Had no effect on his system. As compared with water for quenching, its effect was about the same. May have stimulated to a slight extent. Had taken two or three glasses at once. There was quite a number there with him. Has never seen anyone in or about Manny's brewery intoxicated since the 1st of May.
A. D. SPEED
has obtained "ginger" at Manny's. Was a pleasant drink. Dark color. Had color of beer. Don't know whether it was fermented or not. Never drank enough to know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had drank two glasses at once. Did not think he could drink enough to intoxicate him.
was called and stated that he had been at Manny's, had obtained "ginger" from him. Pretty fair drink. Looks some like lager or Peruvian beer. Does not taste like beer. Does not know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had drank two or three glasses. Had never seen anyone intoxicated in or about Manny's.
had been to Manny's. Had drank "ginger" there. Look some like Peruvian beer. Had foam on it. Did not know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had seen persons under the influence of something in and about Manny's.
Cross examination: Though Peruvian beer was slightly fermented to make it sparkle and foam. Re-examined by the state. Had about same effect as a glass of ice-water.
The state here rested its case. The defense also rested without introducing a witness.
The court then instructed the jury as follows:
The court instructs the jury that the question in this case is whether the sale made to Dan Miller about the 20th day of May, 1881, was a sale of liquor that would produce intoxication, and the burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the liquor was intoxicating liquor and this must be done by the evidence to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the state to show that the liquor sold to Miller was an intoxicating liquor and that it was not sold for mechanical, medicinal, or scientific purposes, that the sale was made at the place described in the complaint.
The defendant is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, and the state is required to make out each particular and material point in the case to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and if, upon the whole of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, there is a reasonable doubt of guilt, the jury should acquit.
The argument of the state was opened by Mr. Beach in a general review of the evidence. He was followed by Judge Soward who made an able argument extending over an hour and a half, containing many excellent points. M. G. Troup followed with an hour, Judge Campbell with an hour and a half, and Attorney Jennings closed.
The jury remained out all night and till late the next day when, having failed to agree, they were discharged by the court. The ballot stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal.
[THE LAW VICTORIOUS: FRANK MANNY.]
Winfield Courier, JULY 14, 1881.
Frank Manny was again arrested last Friday: this time for maintaining a nuisance, under the prohibitory law, which makes the keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, a public nuisance, to be suppressed by due process, and the keeper thereof fined not less than one hundred dollars.
Saturday a jury was impaneled, consisting of W. C. Garvey, W. C. Robinson, D. F. Long, Frank Weakley, W. W. Limbocker, Jacob Seiley, J. J. Plank, ____ Smith, A. H. Doane, Ed. Burnett, John Moffit, and T. J. Harris. This jury is a strong one, which could be depended upon for an intelligent and just verdict.
The case was set for hearing on Monday morning. On that morning Mr. Manny was arrested five times, successively, on different complaints for selling intoxicating drinks in violation of law.
This began to look more like a tornado than like a little squall, and the defendant was inclined to compromise. It was finally agreed that he should confess judgment on the nuisance complaint, and judgment be entered up against him, with a fine of $100, which he should pay, and also pay all the costs of the seven cases against him, close his place of sale, and abide the law, when the six other cases would be dismissed.
We have no unkind feelings against Mr. Manny, but the law must be enforced, whoever it may hurt. He stood in a position that, if others violated the law, it would be charged to him. Now others will have to stand on their own merits, and cannot shuffle off on him.
[CORRECTION MADE ON ITEM ABOUT OAK VALLEY.]
Winfield Courier, JULY 14, 1881.
JULY 11, 1881.
EDITOR COURIER: I notice in your paper of the 7th inst., a report that a man was killed at Oak Valley, Montgomery county, on the 4th of July, for saying Garfield's assassination was a good thing. Now there are two mistakes I wish you to correct. First, there was no man killed at Oak Valley. There was a man shot and slightly wounded by his boys accidentally. Second, Oak Valley is not in Montgomery county nor any other herd law county, but in a county where stock, Christians, and Infidels are allowed their freedom; and the name of that county is Elk.
T. B. CROMWELL.