Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1891-11-18

KIowA, KANSAS,

/
issue an article without note or com
ment, from the Wichita Eagle, entitled
"She Won't Resign" 1 sent this same
article, in answer, to the Eagle, but
suppose for the reason that am anti.
whisky, they did not publish 1t. AS
you haYe published the Eagles article
deem 1T no more than fair to me and
all concerned that you publish this
which can assure you is the facts in
the case. antagonize no political par.
ty, but in the name of the state Of Kan
sas, l ask that those who hold Office (are
the paid servants Of the people) do en-
force the law. There are four open sa-
looms in Kiowa, and have good reason
to believe that the present executive Of
icers of the county are cognizant of the
fact. DR.. Packson was not elected for
an advertisement, but was asked and
was finally persuaded to allow her name
to be used, being told that she could
close the saloons in short order; but af-
ter her election, when she tried to en-
force the law, she was told, you were
only elected to beat Tom GreeYer, and
she was deserted by those who had in
sisted on putting her in Office.
DR.. Packson has tried ever since her
election, through the county attorney,
to close the saloons, but they still run
open and above board. The revivalist
you speak Of did not come until Sep
TENDER, 80 you see the mayor had done
a good deal of hard work before he
came. In regard to the ordinance which
was found defective, the city, under
this ordinance, has for several years
been collecting monthly fine from the
saloon men and gambIers-that is, up
to the present municipal administra-
ton; now, when the mayor has case
brought in the proper way, the ordi-
nance is declared null and void by his
honor, our worthy police judge, in ac-
! cordance with the commander demand
OF lawyer. Since, according to his
honor, we have no ordinance, 1 ask,
how can a monthly or any other kind of
fine be collected from these men?
You blame the mayor because fines are
not collected. This is wrong. 1t is al.
ways the marshal's place to arrest the
offender and bring him before the police
judge, who should then fine him in such
sum as the evidence and the law war
rant. But such has not been the mode
here. Offenders, when proven guilty.
are either allowed to get away or the
fines are so small that they amount to
nothing at all. The revivalist asked
the mayor for that petition, and as far
as know those who signed the petition
were not ashamed, and 1 must say
man who signs petition should not be
ashamed of having it known that he
has signed it. This petition had thirty
signatures. The mayor was presented
with counter petition with about six
ty signatures. He, the revivalist, did
not practically, nor in any other way,
make the business men out as worse
than horse thieves, but he did say that
any man who sold liquor, contrary to
the law, was law-breaker, and as such
was travelling on the same train with
the horse thief and murderer, and l
defy the Eagle, or any other whisky Or
gan, to show how man can sell liquor
in Kansas, contrary to law, and not be
law-breaker, and consequently Grim
inal; and If the money they take from
their customers and pay In as INES,
takes the bread from the mouths of the
wives and the little ones, ask honest.
ly and before God now, as thou shalt
stand before the judgment seat, is it not
blood money?
Regarding the Wright case: If any
one said was the only witness they
told what was not 80. The complaint
made was this: That Charles Wright
was keeping common nuisance, Civ
ing lot and block. as provided in the
statutes of Kansas; and that he haC
also sold liquor contrary to law on Oct
18th, 1891, and during the two years pre-
ceding that date. The judge quasheC
the first part of the complaint, and at
ter the trial he said he knew the las
part was no good. So you see, the cas-
was as good as settled before we begaI
trial at all.
If the county attorney knew, as b,
has since stated, that the complaint wa
J worthless, why did he not say so to tn
complaining witness. and why did b.
} 90 before the jury and plead for con
viction, with the complaint in his hand
knowing that said complaint was worth
less, and he was sure of defeat? Fo
evidence, there were eight men VIII
> went on the stand and swore poin
blank that they had bought intoxlcat
ing liquor of Chas. Wright within tn
time specified in the complaint. OIL
one man said anything about "Cimarro
: water" Yet, because had not see
these men buy and pay for this, the
turned the prisoner loose-or the jur
were instructed to return verdict O
mot guilty" The county attorney 60
up and told the jury that unles
they put the costs on me they would nc
? get cent. Then, IN accordance wit
this and in the face of the evidence
they said did not have probable caus
] for bringing the action-that is, ther
was not a probability that Cha:
Wright was guilty of having sold liquo
during the two years preceding Oct
18th, 1891, as charged IN the complaint
The citizens who are opposed to til
prohibitory law did subscribe money t
: defend the saloon men, but not one sin
gle cent did they give to help me pa
; the costs, which amounted to $63 2;
but in spite of the fact that wanted {
go to Jail to pay the costs, the member
L of the Law and Order league and m
friends subscribed enough to pay th
q aoofo