The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-06-05
FOOLED THE CHIEF.
Policemen Did Tie Can to Dogs Tail
After All, 1t Seems.


That dog canning episode, like the
ghost OF the late Mr. Banquo. refuses
10 stay put" 1t develops that there
are serious doubts concerning the guilt
IesS cohdltlon of Officers Hutton and
heller, and that if Is or 20 more wit
nesses are dragged in to swear that
these officers really did affix a tin to-
nialo wrapper to the caudaI appendage
Oh canine i the chief. in his righteous
anger Is liable to speak harshIy to
them and give them a slap on the wrist
to boot.
Last week the State Journal incau-
LOU printed paragraph to the eff
feet that these two officers had whiled
away the midnight hours by canning a
cog IAe information came straight
put was not fully substantiated. There
Iore' Wnen these bold officers, through
the chlef of police, demanded a retrac-
ton of the "ibeI' instanter, the repor-
ter who had dished up the item de-
clded that an injustice had been done
Ine ofhcers, and FASTENED to retract.
Inc retFactlon was printed Monday,
and that evening a protest was filed by
certain witnesses who claimed the first
assertion to be absolutely correct. In
the meantime threats had been made
by Hutton, before he knew the retrac-
ton had been printed. He declared that
he knew nothing about a dog or a can,
and brought in one Dick Johnson, res
taurant keeper and feeder of the city
prisoners, Mr.. Johnson hastily stated
that he, and not the officers, had
canned the dog in question, and that
he knew absolutely nothing about any
other dog canning incident
An investigation had been made
before this time, said investigation,
which was by order of the chief, con-
sisting wholly of a talk with Mr.. Dick
Johnson Since the retraction was
printed, it develops from the testimony
of three witnesses, with several more
to hear from, that the dog canning in
cident came off as advertised, with
Messrs, Hutton and Keller playing
close second to the dog which, of
course, played the leading part. These
were unwilling witnesses, who stated
that their reticence on the subject was
due to fear of mistreat ment from Hut
ton and Keller.
Among those who sat in the front
row and witnessed the performance
were Frank Betchelheimer, a hackman,
another hacl1man called Peg" whose
other cognOmen is not generally known,
drug clerk, and the innocent Mr..
johnson, who declared that he did not
see the policeman can the dog. Ac-
cording to the real history of the case,
Messrs. Hutton and Keller, on the
night of May 10, did, then and there
grab said dog, drag him into the door
way of the barber shop at 4081A Kan
sas avenue, and tie him with an avn
ing rope While they hunted up a can
and affixed the same to the person of
the dog where it would do the most
good.
The second and real investigation was
conducted by Mayor Green and Ser
geant Ross, and these facts practically
substantiated The evidence, however,
does not look sufficient to the chief.
but as the men will run a very slight
chance of being fired" even should
the chief decide that the evidence was
strong enough, this feature is of little
consequence. The only feature of the
case in the colossal nerve of the po-
liceman in running in a stuffed wit
ness and requesting a retraction of the
original story.
One of the officers, Keller, is a broth
er-in-law of thief Eaton, and halls
from Missouri. The other, Hutton, has
had former police experience. He OPP
Grated in Topeka several years ago UNI
der the Stahl administration, and was
on account of the freedom
with which he used his wet elm club
on prisoners and others. He left town
for a time and worked for the Santa
Fe in Kansas City, where he made his
home. He was a member of the Thug
Brigade the gang of Santa Fe de
tectives'' shipped here during the shop
strike After that aggregation was dis
banded, he returned to Kansas City,
and came back to Topeka just in time
to be appointed on the police force.