Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1902-10-18
The Kirwiu Kansan Article.

1
of last week, that we reprint it in this
issue just as matter of news, so that
our readers may understand what the
article really was. We had not in |
tended to reprint it. but the News OF
last week charged US with printing a
defense Of Mr.. BisSell. The fight is
made by. a. re publican paper. upon a
republican candidate and needed no
attack or defense by us. We have no
personal knowledge OF the facts in the
I the case, hut merely give the Kansan
article as it appeared. Here it is:-
she Seither a 'boozer' OF Il liar!'
are Lhe words of the county attorney
in an argument in behalf Of man Of
untarnished character, and whose
reputation can be established by
hundreds of the best men all over
Kansas. The statement was made
about the man in whose favor the
county attorney was supposed To have
been making an argument.
This paper is a REPUBLICAN paper,
the editors Of this paper are REPUBLI-
CAN, we believe in REPUBLICAN PRIN-
CIPLEs, but we cannot, we WILL NOT
support Guy BiSSell in his candidacy
More than that, We shall do every
thing in our power To elect his oppo-
nent. We repeat we are republican
in principle. but when the republican
party OF Phillips county dominates a
man who SO manifeStly disregardS his
oath of office and tries to override the
simplest principles of common law,
we refuse to let our support of him be
a test of our republicanism.
We shall support the other man,
not because we believe in his politics,
or because we consider popullSt prin-
cipleS worthy, but because we think
he cannot be such traveSty ON the
legal profession, as is the present
county attorney.
Last Thursday and Friday two
justice court trials were held in Kir-
win. They were both trivial cases.
The testimony in both cases was sub
Stantially the same. In the first case
Rev. B. II. Jones was the prosecuting
witness, and AL Price and Charles
Stockmann were the defendants. In
the second case Charles Stockmann
was prosecuting witness, and Rev. B.
III. Jones was the defendant. In the
first case the charge was assault and
| battery, and the defendant was found
guilty. In the second there was no
| legal charge in the complaint, but BY
THE ADVICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
the justice allowed the complaint to
be amended to disturbing the peace"
and the defendant was found guilty.
In the first case the penalty was $40
and costs. In the second 1t was $40
and costs. In the first case about the
only argument the county attorney
made for the prosecuting witness was,
by his own testimony, the man
! (JoneS) is either 'booZer' or liar"
| In the second he made a twenty min
uteS argument in which he exalted
the character of the plaintiff, and
made d violent and abusive attack
upon young man whose character
cannot be truthfully called in QueS-
tion; man who carries papers signed
by many of the most influential citi-
zenS of northwest Kansas; a man who
is the head Of family and the owner
of a house and lot in Smith Centre,
in which place he is held in the highest
esteem; man who is graduate Of
Oberlin college; a man whose only
crime is that he is minister If the
gospel, and believes in the enforce
ment of the law.
In the first trial the county attorney
Studiously avoided points that might
have been made in favor of Mr.. Jones,
while in the second he multiplied and
magnified points against him.
The jury in the second case is not
blameworthy. While beingexamined
under oath, most Of them stated that
their judgement was biased. When
these jHrymen were challenged for
cause by the attorneys for the defend
ant, so powerful was the influence of
the county attorney over the justice,
that he allowed these jurymen to sit.
The jury was discharged without CIV
ing the attorneys for the defeuSe an
opportunity to poll them. The justice
reaSSembled the jury, but when the
attorneys for the defense refused to
i recognize them as jury because they
had been discharged, the county at
torney again injected little influence
into the justice, and 1.-The verdict of
guilty was rendered, the fine I'M
posed, and the prisoner set free with
out commitment, presumably to pay
his fine or not, as he chose. We dare
say there never before was held in
Kansas a court that was parable
to that one.
How many votes did the county at
torney make by the course he followed
in these two cases?