The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-10-09

Action OF the state.
Pittsburg, Kan, Oct. S.-The negro
row between Will Cox and Rich Riley
which occurred in this city on trlday
evening and the subsequent arrest OIL
H2iIey. has occasioned conflict OF au-
tbority between the city and state Of
ficials which, at the present stage, has
become quite interesting. 1t seems
both the city and state authorities IS
sued warrants for the arrest or Cox
the former for disturbing the peace OF
the city. and the latter for an ohense
against the laws Of the state. Cox was
srraigned before the city tribunal Sat
urday morning where he pleaded guilty
and not being able to pay the fine was
recommitted to jail.
The state authorities then proceeded
with their warrant and demanded the
custody of the prisoner of Policeman
Tucker, who refused to deliver MN
over For this refusal, Tucker was
placed under arrest by the state ana
cited to appear before Justice HoWland
on fhe morning of the 9th instance TO
answer for his alleged Offense. SINH
lar demands from the state followed up
on each of the other policemen, Tom
Howe. Clint Webb and Frank McNally,
which were likewise refused and the
same result as in the case OF Tucker fol-
lowed, McNally being cited TO appear at
9 o'clock on the 10th, and Howe at 3
O'Clock on the 18th, and Webb at l
o'clock the same day. According TO
the view taken by the city authorities
in the matter, the policemen were just-
fled in making refusal to deliver the
prisoner It is claimed they have no
authority to release a prisoner from the
custody of the city Jail except upon
authority OF the judge Of municipal
court or the mayor and city council 1t
is admitted that under the statute the
state as entitled TO the prisoner upon
making proper demand which the city
authorities claim, must be upon the
mayor and city council, which in this
case has not been made. 1t is further
maintained that the universal custom
in such cases has been for the state to
wait until the fine has been paid and
the prisoner immedia tely re-arrested
upon the charge by the state, before he
is let free
The only question, however, is wheth-
er or not the states demand is good, or
whether such demand must, as stated,
be made upon the mayor and council
IL the demand is made is held good, the
several policemen stand charged with a
rather serious offense. Paragraph 2.302
of the general statutes Of the state pro-
vides that such offense is punishable by
not more tn an five years in the peniten-
tiary at hard labor or imprisonment for
not less than six months or a fine of not
less than $500
The state side Of the case mas not
been heard, and is il therefore impos- !
sible to state its position in the mat
ter. Public sentiment seems largely /
on the side of the policemen, however. /
who certainly did only what they be- |
1ieved was their duty They are each |
under $1,000 bonds for their appearance I
in court, and the way the best citizens
of the city came TO their aid, is a vindi- |
cation Of which they may feel proud !
The names of the bondsmen are: O. $. |
Casad, A K. Lanyon, ]. A. huffman /
DR.. A. O. Blair and George Weisbord |
Some of those who enlist the liveliest /
sympathy with the policemen have, I'M !
duly censured Justice Rowland for is |
suing, and Constable Ireland for serv-
ing the warrants against the policemen |
The fact is, however. when they are
directed by the state to issue and serve /
such process, they have no discretion 1
In the matter but are bound to obey.
and 1t becomes a very serious offense 1
upon their part against the state, /
should they refuse.
The prisoner over whom all this fuss 4
is about is still in Jail wholly ignorant /
on the existence of the states Warrant I
ana the controversy outside.
1t IS further moved that a meeting of 1
the city council Will shortly be called !
ana the prisoner turned over to the
state and thereby end the controversy
as well as the needless expense of tho /
numerous prosecutions