Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1901-02-23
The snprsme Court on Join. Smashing


The Kansas City Journal has re-
ceived many communications from
Kansas readers insisting that mas
much as the liquor traffic is illegal in
Kansas there are no property rights
in saloon goods and furniture which
any citizen is bound to respect The
hatciret work of Mrs. Nation and her
associates is for this reason pronounce
ed lawful and right. This is the the
DRY that the joInt-smashers them
selves have proceeded on and they
profess to have no fear but that the
state courts will so declare when they
come to trial. The trouble with all
these people is that they have got
their law from they chimney corner
instead of from the law books. They
certainly have not consulted the de-
cisions rendered by the state supreme
court.
Joint-smashing is not new spec
tacle in Kansas, nor is its lawlessness
or unlawfulness new question in the
Kansas courts. Only two years ago
there was a case involving the very
many points raised by the defenders
of Mrs. Nation. and it received the
attention of the highest court in the
state. In Cloud county, at the Jan
uary. 1889. term, of the district court,
a case came to trial entitled 1.-THE,
State of Kansas, plaintiff, vs.. Peter
Hammerli, defendant" The history
of this case is related by the Concor-
dia Press, from which we quote as
follows:
Hammerli kept joint in Milton
vale, in this county. some of the la
dies of that place, forerunners of Mrs.
Nation, formed a ''Hatchet Brigade"
and proceeded to the joint of Ham
merli, as they testified, for the pur
pose of destroying the Intoxicating
liquors, the bottles and vessels in
which kept, as well as the bar fixtures
land other property used in keeping
the joint and selling the liquor. The
Saloonkeeper, Ilammerli, barred his
door, and on the attempt of The bril-
gade to break in he fired Il loaded
shotgun into the crowd, hitting one
In the head and putting out an eye.
Ii e was tried and convicted on the
groudd. not that he had no right To
defend his property, tnougn joint,
but that he had no right 10 go farther
or use more force than to him WIS
he used was. under the circumstances,
unreasonable and unnecessary, and
he, therefore, guilty oi Inc OfienSe
charged -.
On the trial the stale claimed, as
Mrs. Nation does, and a> some OF the
Topeka lawyers seem to, Thai The la
dies and their friends iiau the right
to go TO the joint and iorcIuiy destroy
it, and the property used in carrying it
on, and that defendant tad no right
to prevent or defend, at least TO same
extent as other property
The Instructions asked 10y the state
at the request OF the county attorney,
Mr.. Culver, and his associate, Mr..
Hardness, was as follows:
The jury is Instructed THAT all
places in this state where 1ntoxicat-
ing liquors are manufactured, sold,
bartered or given away contrary to
law are public nuisauces, and the law
will not protect the same, and the
keeper thereof cannot be Justified in
using a deadly weapon iii defense
against a person, or ;lSSenblage of per-
sons, who are threatening or attempt
ing to forcibly destroy the same
Therefore, in this case, il tie jury
find that the defendant was a keeper
of such a public nuisance, aud that at
the time tile door to his place was
broken by Cora Squires and others. he
knew, or had reasonable grounds To
believe, that the only purpose of the
persons SO breaking in said door was
to destroy the liquors 10y him SO I'M
lawfully kept in said place for sale,
and To break and destroy the vessels
in which the liquor was contained,
and that they did not intend to do
him any personal or bodily injury,
then in such case the defendant had
no legal right to use a deadly weapon
to prevent SAID persons from entering
said place.
This instruction of court refused to
give, and instead gave the following:
In this case, the fact, If fact it is,
that the defendant was a jointkeeper
and his habitation a joint, if it was,
and his property therein. liquor and
fixtures used in disposing the same, if
such is the case, can make no differ
engaged in unlawful business does not
give others any lawful right to de-
stroy the property or injure the per-
son of those SO engaged, without in
of law.
This case was taken to the SUI
preme court and tile decision affirmed
by that court. October, 1899.
From the above it appears that Miss
Cora SQuires and other ladies of Mil
and not Mrs. Nation, were
the original discovers of the s'Hatchet
Brigade remedy for joints, and the
question as to the rights of jointistS
to life and property is well settled and
not in any sense new and undeLer-
mined.
How to Cure the Grip.
N nniaf1v Mt faI