The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-05
Carrie Nation and Her Follow
ers So Characterized.
Supreme Court Declares Cru
saders Are Not Justifiable.
BALFE STARK CASE
Decided by Highest Legal Tri'
bunal in State.
The Decision of Judge Hazen Is
Sustained.

In affirming the decision of Judge
Hazen in the case of Balfe Stark, the
highest legal tribunal in the state to-
day said that Carrie Nation crusades
are not justitiable in law and that cru
saders are trespassers-
The Balfe Stark case originated IN
the expedition that formed on the state
house steps on the morning of the lIth
of February last and ended in the
smashing of the joint of F. Fl. Murphy
at III East Sixth street Stark, vita
Carrie Nation and six others, was trled
in the district court and sentence OF
SIS and costs was put upon him stark
case was tried separately
Stark had no good grounds for
change of venue, the supreme court
also says. The application was made
on the ground of the prejudice of the
presiding judge against him, and was
based on language used by the judge
towards Carrie Nation and three others
who We're brought before him upon pro-
ceedings wherein they were held to give
bond to keep the peace, the charges
against them being substantially the
same as those contained in the nfor-
nation against Stark: the destruction
of property. The latter, however, was
not a party to that prosecution In ad-
dressing Mrs Nation and the three 9TH
ers the judge stated that the action of
any construction to be placed on the
law, and further said:
Il want to say to your people who
appear charged with having aided and
abetted her that this Is a court of law.
and not one of sentiment. Having bro
ken the law, YOU have no more rights
in this court than the jointist. Your
contempt of the law is as great as his.
Mrs. Nation and her followers m ade an
attack Sunday upon a perfectly legiti-
mate business in which $4,000 is in
vested. They have repeatedly bI%&en
the law and destroyed property and
gone unhindered and unpunished. The
time has come in this community when
people are demanding that some thing
be done. want to say to you that this
unwarranted destruction of property
must stop. Have people no rights that
q crazy woman and her deluded follow
ers are bound to respect? There is not
lawyer in this room who will not tell
You that you have no right under the
law to do these things. You
have no right to attempt to abate q
nuisance except through the regular
channels Reputable men in this COM
munity have given sanction to move
ment that has led to riot and may lead
to hloodshed. want to say to you peo-
pie Who have been placed under bond
that if you go out on any more raids
your bondsmen will be compelled to
forfeit the amount to the last penny
want to make this proposition clear to
YOU Property must and will be defend
ed
The opinion of the court, which was
written by Justice Smith, says:
The court hid not err in overruling
the application for a change of venue
Tne remarks OF the judge were made
10 Carrie Nation and others in a pro-
ceedlng TO which the appellant was not
a party No personal prejudice towards
Stark was shown From all that ap-
pears the judge might have been kind
~ disposed toward the defendant The
attack on Sunday, referred to bv the
judge, related to the conduct of other
parties with whom the appellant was
not connected Had the language COM
Ing from the bench been directed TO
Stark. he might have had reason to
complain His case was not however
before the court at that time 1t has
been held that change of venue is a
wrong TO the public unless the inter-
ests of justice to the defendant recl1ire.
1t, and that prejudice on the part of
a Judge towards a defendant must
clearly appear 1t is not sufficient that
a pr1ma facie case only be shown The
record shows that the district iudge
tried the case with fairness and the
punishment imposed was exceedingly
moderate, considering that the maxi
mum for such O11enSeS is imprisOnment
in the county Jail not exceeding one
year, and by flne not exceeding $500. or
by both such fine and imprisonment.
Complaint is made that several of
defendants witnesses, on croSs-exar1oi-
nation, were subjected to rjefd IN
QuirleS as to the existence of a certa in
organization formed for the purnosa 81
destroying property. Nothing more
was extracted by the state from such
witnesses than the defendant himSelf
confessed concerning such organiza-
ton He admitted that he was a mem
Der or company which assembled IN
the state house steps and from there
moved to the place where the property
In question was injured and thar he
took an AK along because he Thought he
might be called on to use if
Mr. Stark offered to prove that the
prosecuting witness. al the time fbe
trespass was committed and his prom
erty injured and destroyed. was fhe
keeper OF a place where intoxfca tine
liquors were sold as a beverage in xria7
lation of law. and that the proDartv in
question was unlawfully used as an
accessory thereto This offer was re-
1ecred by the court and the fesfirnon1,
excluded. Upon this ruling the o1Sas,
ton arises whether, the owner Of +ba
property having employed IL as an ai5
10 the maintenance of common nuis-
ance, the appellant was justified in he
process of law
Under our statutes all places where
intoxicating liquors are sold or where
persons are permitted to resort for the
purpose or drinking Intoxicating lio,,ore
an beverage or where such liS,,o,es ~. : - !
kept Tor sale, barter or delivery in vio-
lation OF the prohibitory LIQUOR law avs
declared 20 be common nuisances. and
jurisdiction that such nIacas .rs :
nutEances, the sheriff or constahla -
marshal of any city where the saToa ~,
located, shall be directed to shut 10 ana
thereof. and of all Intoxicating 1inr7ors
&0Ha6 therein, together with ar &C..