The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-08-29
HE SCORES HATTON
BILL CAMPBELL Has A Ian TO.
PLACE ALL THE BLAME UPON.
Assistant Attorney General Tells Why He
Dismissed the Citizens Club Case-Says
Judge HattOn was Packing the Jury
He will Not Try Any More Cases Before
Him-Tiger Bill Lights a stogy Cigar
and Quotes Law-says He will Dismiss
the Next Case il Judge Ratton is on the
Bench

and Quotes Law-says He will Dismiss
the Next Case if Judge Ratton is on the
| Bench
A reporter for the Eagle called az the
| Office of Assistant Attorney General
| Campbell and asked him 10 give his
reasons for his sensational dismissal OF
i the Citizens club case.
Il will tell you if you will report me
exactly what l say"
| GO ahead" said the reporte. and
Tiger Bill sailed in with the following
wall:
This case was set for trial last Sat-
urday, the oath. On Friday afternoon
Judge Hatton made out list of twenty
| four jurors from which on Saturday
morning the state struck six names and
| the defense six name, and the remain
| ing twelve constituted the original
| panel in the case. There are four de-
| PENDANTS. Each of them were entitled
TO challenge peremtorily four jurors.
sixteen in all, and the state was en-
! titled TO challenge one-half ar many
eight. Some of the original panel were
excused and some challenged for cause,
and the question arose, how the panel
'
ceeding now under the justices code.
which provides that the marshal who is
a constable in this case. shall summon
from the by-standers or neigh boring
citizens a suitable number TO fill up
the panel, which is simply an old com
mon law enacted in the statute and
means that if there are a suitable num-
Der OF persons possessing the Qualifica-
tons of jurors among the by-standers
the officer will call them into the box
If in his opinion there are not Suitab BILE
persons present he is to go out among
the citizens Of the county and select
suitable persons. / insisted that the
jury should be selected in accordance
with the law. The defense insisted that
the court should select the jurymen.
Apparently the court for the time be-
ing. decided in my favor and the mar
shall commenced to fill the panel, but
the court very soon changed his mind
and announced that he would select the
jury himself, and take the full respon-
sibility Of it. Relying, I suppose, on the
provisions of the criminal code regulat-
ing proceedings in the district court.
which has no application 70 this case
before him as a justice Of the peace,
there being special provisions in the
Justices code on the subject. He made
a list of jurors and gave il To the mar
shall with directions TO summon them.
They were made up from what the
court termed business men principally
on Douglas avenue and Main street.
They proved to be on examination op-
posed TO the enforcement of the prohibit
tory law, and who stated on oath that
they believed the penalty of fine and
Imprisonment was too severe for the
Offense. He then made out another list
and adjourned the court in order that
they might be brought in. The second
list was composed as was the first. This
list was returnable on Tuesday morn
ing. Some four or five of this list were
examined and found 70 be incompetent
by reason Of their prejudices, in the
case, and the court then stopped calling
any more of the list and concluded to
make out a list of jurors residing out of
the city, and in the adjoining townships
of Delano. Waco. Wichita and Min
neha. On this, Wednesday morning,
the jurors were called and one by one
excused for cause on the ground that
they had either formed an opinion or
believed the penalty too severe. After
ten or twelve had been called. Mr.. n.
c. Cooley, residing in the township
north of the city. stated in answer to
the questions as to his competency that
he did not know the defendants EXCEPT
he knew the SchnitZlers generally by
reputation. That he knew nothing a
all about the facts Of the case. That ne
had never heard il discussed or talked
about. That he had never formed or
expressed any opinion s To the guilt or
innocence of the defendants and knew
no facts whatever upon which u base
an opinion. In answer 10 the questions
propounded by the defense he stated
that he had been informed several days
ago by his son that the SchnitZlers had
been arrested for keeping a saloon. that
that was all his son had said on the
subject. That he formed no opinion as
to their guilt from that conversation.
Being pressed. as upon crosS-eXami-
nation, he was made to say in sbstance
that he had confidence in the word %
his son and supposed that what he said
was true and supposed that Schnitzlers
had been keeping saloon. but that ne
had formed no positive opinion on the
subject and knew nothing about II pos
itively. This was the sum and sub
stance and the whole Of his examina-
tion. Cooley was told 10 stand aside.
Il. y. Dean. a farmer living in Waco
township. was next called. He stated
eral way. That he knew nothing about
the facts of the case. That he had
never heard the facts Of the case talked
a about or discussed by and one. That
he had formed no opinion on the queS-
ton Of guilt or innocence. on eXamina-
ton by defendants attorney he said
that he had heard frequently during
the last few years that the Schnitzlers
were engaged in keeping a saloon. That
he had never heard il contradicted and
had taken il for granted that they were
engaged in that business according 70
general rumOT. but that ne had never
given the subject any attention and had
never formed any positive opinion.
When asked = he had formed an ODin-
Sa-,, +-rfs I
in the business Of saloon keepers he
said 7 don; know exactly what voU
mean by N opinion. ] have heard =
stated frequently that they We're.
never heard anything stated - The con-
trary ! just assented u IL a. I would
10 any other report of that kind. L
may be an opinion or conclusion. or
an impression. but whatever II * L
could have no influence on my mind II
the trial OF this case
The court held that he was incom-
peteat.
while the challenge against Mt
Cooley was pending I asked the court
70 he heard on thu subject; ] said that
7 rad understood from statements
made by the court when the question
ca ne ~ before in the trial In which ~
held the same doctrine that the su-
prone court Rad made Adhesion - that
effect thar the jurors We're incompetent.
He said that they had 50 decided.
said that knew they had rla6n no such
decision. and asked hina To point me u
i IN order that ] might show that he
was mistaken IN his view q the same.
He then told the officer - SO and go
him e9th kansas 7 said 7 was aware
Of the case thai n had In his 11:a5 ana
that the court Rad nof decided what BE-
thought was decided. That 7 could
show him clearly the distinction n th=
Gnl - -