The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1884-01-17
THE MAOKE CASE


Macke before Governor Chick.
Maeke In his affidavit says that a
soon as he "wss informed that saiC
cause was finally disposed Of he causrC
good and sufficient appeal bond to b
pres ented 10 the successor in Office o
said Bachelor" &c
1t will be remembered that Bachellel
convicted Maeke May %, 1882. and tina
BachelIer's Successor was not elected
until April, 1888, and we understand n
fact that the so-called appeal bond wa
not presented until IN November or De
cembef. 1888.
Is Il not huge joke that man should
wait eighteen months after his convic
ton In q criminal case before preparing
his appeal bond, when the statute re
quires that IL must be done in twenty
four hours.
Mr.. Lambert says in his affidavit: 81
was r. file q motion TO dismiss all of the
counts contained in said chsrge but one
on The grounds that the Justice O.. b
pending) did not have Jurisdiction Il
try more than one count" sc.
Now the motion which Lambert did
fle. as set out and sworn to by Macke in
his petition for ha6eds corpus, was this
| @The Stale of Kansas vs.. Frederick
Macke and Caroline Macke-Motion: :
Comes now the defendent herein and
moves the court to dismiss this case upon
the ground and for the reason that this
court has not Jurisdiction TO try and de-
termine the same. /. 4. LAMBERT,
Attorney for Defendant"
Now, u appears that Lambert violated
On the star the agreement he now swears
he m ale. l would 10 as II from that
time an Sedgwick was NOT bound by
any agr m It o.fore hen n tde. Ii
was argued by Judge Buck, in he habess
'orpus proceedings tina, L .,nb-rt's mo
tinn did not raise the point intended.
but thai is q matter of law which, as a
newspaper. We don t assume to dedide.
Lambert further saws in his affidavit:
at decided there lin the supreme
court against Macks, he, the said
Macke, was then u have the privilege of
fling an appeal bond. within ten days
| fT0fa The time the said case was decided
by the said supreme court, and the case
was then 10 go TO the district court Of
SAID county, there to be tried on its
merits"
This we should call another joke.
Macke stands convicted by court of
competent jurisdiction, and is by that
court sent to Jail Hc files no appeal
bond, nor ever attempts to execute one
for eighteen months. He never asks for
q new trial. The district court and the
supreme court say his Imprisonment is
lawful-at least go we infer from Lam.
bert's afiidavits.
By what sort of hOeus pOcus could he
now be tried for those offensesP Sedg-
wick, as county attorney, on May 8,
1882, files an affidavit before G. B. Bach
eller, j. p. swearing therein to 12 sales
Of liquor between Nov. 1. 1881, and May
1, 1882, and that continuously from May
1, 1881, until May 1, 1882, Macke had
kept his brewery (near by our State Nor
NAL SchooD as a nuisance.
We believe 1t principle OF natural
law as we'll as provision in the federal
and state constitutions, that no person
shall "be twice put in jeopardy for the
same offense." 1t would be difficult to
convince Macke that he has not already
been "in jeopardy"
We don't believe that Sedgwick had
any authority to make such an agree
ment as Lambert claims. The people
who thrice elected him to that position
did not intend he should be engaged in
any such boys play.
Bachelor says In his affidavit, speak
ing Of Lambert, "he thought he could
have the question determined in ten
days, and II it should be held that was
right he would then appeal an that
time" We think that would be better
than eighteen months.
Lambert further says In his affidavit:
"The law questions herein before
mentioned were taken under advise
ment by the court, and were decided in
about one year."
This would intimate that the district
court was about as slow as Macke in
getting up his appeal bond.
But the 1acts, rs we heard them at the
time, seemed to be about as follows
Mr.. Lambert sent to Judge Graves an
affidavit, or verified petition, alleging
unlawful Imprisonment; that when the
matter was suggested in court, Mr..
SedgwIck said Judge Buck was to argue
the law poiuts involved and Buck in
sisted that the court could not ell whethr
| R.nhnll..Wsa 1,aff
until he had seen 1t, and That the papers
| should also contain a copy o. BNchrller' s
papers and ducket
The matter hung along uatil June 80,
1853. wnen Col. Feighn, then county
attorney, had F. p. Psyne, Bachelors
successor, issue mittimus to put Macke
IN Jail. +. N. Sedgwick then prepared
q petition in ha6tIS corpus, to which
Macke swore ON June 2lst, 1883. Buck
and Feighen, rs they then said, were
ready to begin the case. Macke's
attorneys asked time to prepare their
argument, and for their accommodation
it was continued until Aug. IL, 1888, and
then heard, and, we think, promptly de.
cided by Judge Graves.
Mr.. Sedgwick's affidavit is very long,
and 10 quote it entire would take nearly
two columns. We infer from his state
ment and Bachelors, which seem To
as rec in that respect, that Macke was to
make his appeal teithiR ten days from
May -, 1882, and here is another viola
tion of the agreement on Macke's part
This agreement, like all that have been
made in this city with The liquor inter
est, seems never to have been kept on
the part of the traffic.
Judge Buck informed us long ago that
he drew the complaint against Macke at
Sedgwick's request, SedgwIck being
busy at the time. That ]. l.. w. Bell
and others were pressing the matter,
and that he made thirteen counts of il
because the evidence as reported to HIM
seemed TO warrant it, That he always
supposed the prosecution was for the
purpose OF Furnishing Macke for viola.
tions of law, aud not to settle questions
Of law which could have been set
tied by an examination OF the law
books in tenth part of the time.
This is the centennial year of Melhc-
dism in America. The general confer.
encs organization OF the Methodist
Episcopal church In America took
place In Baltimore IN December 1874
In commemoratiOn Of that event the
general conference of delegates from al
Methodist bodies will celebrate the cen
tennial In that city next December, and
already preparations are making for it
There are now $4,000 Methodists IL
the United States and they have church