The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-07-25
1ai1y - sae1 e
TWO POLITICALLY Rotten coMMoNwEALTHs.
M. M. MURDOCH, Editor

TWO POLITICALLY ROTTEN coMMoNWEALTHs.
The political bosses Of Pennsylvania headed by the
governor have through their creature. the Pennsyva
MIA legislature nuzzled the press that state The
Of Pennsylvania the people of that state
through the press may longer crcse official corrup-
.;on or dare denounce hghhanded political usurpaton
and roenness upon the part officers without subject
ing themselves to fine and imprisonment
The ringowned and boodle-machine supreme court OF
Missouri has also muzzed press of that state by lille
gally arresting and summary Furnishing two or three
editors who in the name the people and in the inter
est of decency dared crcse VIGOROUSLY onesided and
presumably corrupt judgment judgment in favor of
corporation as against an humble individual citizen Of
Missouri and which judgment fagrantly outrageous
in that the findings the lower courts and OF their
juries were persstenty turned three several times
The newspapers OF neither Pennsylvania nor the
newspapers of Missouri copy reproduce What the
Eagle asserts in foregoing paragraph, and for ev
dent reasons In these two is held to be crime
for newspaper defend the people against the boss
made enacments Of bossconstituted legislature, to
critcise the mandates Of bOssowhed court If the
machinenatlted court Of state and the machine
ring legislature Of another state fine and prson
editors why may not the legislatures and the courts of
all the states at the behes Of political machines at the
command of the rings which choose legislators install
courts and dictate laws follow the example set by
the legislature Pennsylvania and the court
Missouri? No rightminded independent conscien-
tious man could desire publish paper in either 81 the
states mentioned where to champion the right Of in
dvidua or to stand for the people is held
to be a penal oTense.
One of the judges of the Missouri supreme court,
which fined an editor $5273O for criticisng it, Demo
cratic candidate for governor the As nominee
still holding down his position viii havve dead cinch
the opposition newspapers of Missouri He can fine
them for contempt and will be appeal under the
laws VIII the people of Warrensburg, who
paid that fine, be found voting for that thin
skinned judge any great numbers? The editor told
the truth evidently from the the shoe pinched The
people Warrensburg believe he told the truth Were
of that court owned by the railways as
charged they not brbabe outfit they would have
stood on dignity, of their rectitude But
not sc They were hit hard and Refusing to
grant a postponement in which afford Editor SheD-
lawyers in which make up their they
summarily choked down the defendants lawyers and
fined the defendant $5273O COSTS and the Missouri
paper that question the proceedings crcise
the unheard highhanded action will. in all probable
ity with the punishment administered to the War
rensburg editor whose only crime telling the truth
he saw it, telling in the interest of good gov
ernment and in behalf of an obscure citizen as against
6 corporation which refused deal justly