The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-09-03
Cant. Waters Makes Demand on
Mrs. Barclays Attorney.
Wants Marian Bleakley Return
ed to Topeka at Once.
ARE NOT YET READY.
Child Will Be Surrendered When
Mrs. Barclay Returns.
John H. Atwood Gives 1.-THE Other
Side" Of the Case.

Capt. J. 6 Waters. attorney Tor Mrs-
Charlotte BleakIey. today made for-
nal demand that Marian Bleakley De
returned &C Topeka at orce- Attorney
Atwood in Kansas City refused 70 con-
sent to this arrangement During MS
stay in Topeka last night, however, ne
made arrangements that the little Slrl
will be turned over to her mother ana
brought to Topeka as soon as Mrs
Barclay returns to Kansas City from
Buffalo which will probably be next
Monday.
Notwfthstaudirg the statements OF
Mrs. RarcIay TO the contrary the ngnt
for possession Of the incubator baby Is
ever. The woman will surrender all
claims to the child and II viii be al
ltwed to remain in the u1dIsputed pos
session of its mother There VIII be no
trial OF the habeas corpus case IN Kan
sas City.
TIE :Sfdnaping charge will be tried in
Shawnee county and while Mrs Barclay
has received no promise OF cIeHehcy
from County Attorney Sehenck u Is
certain that she viii not Suner from
her action in surrendering the child to
its mother The closing Of the contest
for possession or the little girl, the at
torneys figure will take the kerneI OF
interest out Of the kidnapping charge
and II is probable that Mrs Barclay,
when she tens her side of the story to
the court will not be dealt with harShly
BY any means
given 20 the State Journal last evening
By Mr. Atwood. which he requested be
Printed without the change of 4 word
in which he gives Mrs. Barclays side
OF the controversy and claims that she
has proof that the little girl IS not the
Child OF Mrs. Bleakley at all
Mfr. Atwood's Statement
Nj. Gtwocd's statement is as fol-
lows:
You ask rs to state what I have to
saw with relation to the Barclay
BieatTa[ casaa It is not nv custom
&c try my law suits in the newspapers.
but since so much has been said about
this particular case. and there are SO
many sapprehensions in the minds of
+he people that il is only proper GER
tain facts that are indubitabIe and
which have thus far not been presented
journaIfsttcaIly &c the public should be
made known
Mrs BIeakley is due of course TO the
fact that people suppose that she IS the
mother Of the child in question NOW
as g matter Of fact as Charles A
Smart, Judge Of Douglas county, at the
city of Lawrence. has well said, But
rever for a moment has the question
been decided upon the suppOsitiOn that.
Mrs BleakIey is the mother of the
Judge Smart was the one who gave the
custody of the child to Mrs Barclay.
and who tried out the question as to-
whether Mrs BIeakley was the mother,
and in the opinion that he rendered,
Judge Smart stated as above and as
follows:
1t was not done because there is
no evidence in this record to sustain
It (the claim that Mrs BIeakley was
mother of the child.) There is not al
ScfntiIIa of evidence that tended in the
remoteSt degree to show this young
woman is the mother of the child 1t
is very easy to say. when no one has
the responsibility to act under oath,
what ought to be done. but it will be
& dangerous day for this country when
courts act without evidence Courts
might decree from now until the crack
of DOOM that this woman Mrs Bleak
Iey) is the mother. but she is not so
far as the evidence is concerned
Judge Snart's Opinion
Further on Judge Smart says: And
yet I am asked to put this child into
woman who never claimed any rela-
ti0uship to the child, but who simply
saw 1t a human waif about to be sent
adr-ft; whose heart went out to it when
it was an object OF curiosity if not re-
pulsion to the vast mulutudes, and wao |
took fl into her care and custody; VINO /
watched over it when it was sick day
after day and night after night when
protected It even from the stigma of its
birth by giving it her own name, ami
for this she is condemned The fore
going are the words Of Judge Smart
1t may be said that Judge Smart
was reversed, but he never was re-
versed upon any finding OF fact: sim
ply On the legal proposition that the
Illinois courts controlled
At this point Mr.. Atwood showed the
State Journal reporter that the paper
G~rsrT7 n. a II
certified copy of Judge Smart'S opinion |
He thsn called the reporters attention
to an affidavit signed and sworn to Dy
DR. Richard NJ kerIey of St Louis in
which the following statement appears:
The defendant states that when he I
went TO Mr. MerrifieId's sanitariu1r, |
e11 Ella avenue. (St- Louis) and at
tended the aforesaid Mrs BleakIev in
the birth of the child. that said child
was born on the 18th day OF February.
1904 and at the time of it's birth Il was |
dead or what is known in the medical
profession as still orn child"
He also showed the reporter A book
which is headed Birth Record kept
BY Mrs Merrffeld beginning with the /
year 1859 going OF down through the
various years TO 1904. and on page so
OF this record with records of births
oefore and after. appeared the usual I
form D flor daughter1 of J. J. and Lot
tie Bleakley: still born, Feb. 18th. par
ents Y ; 4. together with the num- |
Der or the street, 6121 Ella avenue.
Against this entry appears the name OF
kerley and Received s25o0.'
He then showed the reporter wha. |
appeared and purported to be the rec
ord of DR. KerIey called his Cash
Book beginning with the year 1900 go
ing down to Feb. 18th, 1904, Mrs.
Bleakley SIS. oe''
Letter From Mrs. Bleakley.
Mr. Atwood said: These things iuzr
AhoWn would tend to satisfy reasonably