The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-01-20

a case provijs q competent prosecutor
as we'll as 10 provide counsel for the de-
! PENDANT IN cases where the accused f.
unable to pay an attorney. Bat of al
outrsges the granting Of the right 70 a
change Of venue to the defendant and
denying it TO the state is the most IN
defensible. don't believe there has been
case in ten years IN Kansas where
there was any real need Of q change Of
venue to secure the accused al the rights
conferred by the great charter. But I
can cite two cases within three year
in sparcely populated counties where well
known thieves escaped prosecution be-
cause a jury could not be gotten for a
second trial, the first having failed By the
loyalty Of the one juryman friendly to
the thieves. What harm except 10 the
criminal classes could have been done by
granting the state the right to move the
case into the next Ely. In the case
OF a notorious criminal it Is difficult 70
get even the first jury in a sparsely popu-
lated county, but it is often quite impos-
sible to get the second under our law on
jurors qualifications. Change the Jaw SO
that say nine Jurors agreeing shall make
that a man cannot get on a jury If he
coufesses himself an Incompetent, FIRE
sponsible person to get on the jury and
give the state the right 10 move case into
next county and confne the cause TO the
single fact that jury cannot he obtained
in the county where the case originated
and we viii clean up crime In western
Kansas.
Il have so far plead only for western
Kansas when the difficulties are many
times greater 20 secure a jury under our
code than in more populous counties. But
now comes a case very near home and
in one OF the popul0us counties Of the
state. Those well Informed do not believe
they can get a competent jury in Butler
county TO retry the Morrison case. many
do not believe they can get another jury
competent or Incompetent under the rue
IS there any reason why It should not o
lawful to move this case to an adjoining
county? Would ANYBODY object jout the
accused? Is there any danger Of the de-
PENDANT suffering by the overpowerng IN +
huence Of the state? Who has got the
best Of the trial 50 Ear and how far have I
our criminal laws encouraged evil doers !
IL this trial Those only who commit Z
crime and those who profit by crime d. +
rectly or indirectly can object 70 the PRO
posed reform Now a word 20 the double I
crime committed IN Leavenworth. A ter 4
-ible crime BIZ ar ignorant brutal negro /
followed by another terrible crime by an .
intelligent brutal public. The greater
bur opportunities and the higher our IN /
-elligeuce the greater our responsibilities !
and the graver becomes wrong doing.
The glorious traditions hanging over
Ieavenworth are departed II they had i
hanged or shot the criminal 7 should suI
nave been sorry but to burn him and .
hen rejoice In the act leaves no chance
% make a defense Tor cur neighbor.
But the governors sugges uons az
orded no remedy for a repetition Of this
mob crime. NINE does II Is not the want
Y severity Ga the lawful penalty that en-
.ourages crime. The difference between
he death penalty and HE imprisonment
would make no difference 70 the rapist
n murderer but The hope first that he
vii escape detection and the stronger
iops that e he Is detetcted Snd tried
-ood defense by sharp lawyers and the
.elp OF the law made and then construed
p MS favor g the strongest assurances Or
ackward. An eye for an eye ard tooth
or tooth belonged 20 other things ans
Their peoples. when vengeance IS mine
sith the Lord was a popular text II he-
1nes 70 the tine when insanity was
reated as q crime, only fsw years tgo
hat science taught us that a.
anity was disease and we
ana 70 pity and trest with great
lndness e victims ard finally We learned
o treat and cure q large percentage %
aese unfortunate Is there any of
-od's creatures. Together dsprared2 Is
here not some Dr Jelytl IN All charac-
arz2'