RECAP FRANK MANNY.

Prohibition changed the Winfield economy in 1881 with the final closing of the saloons on March 12, 1881, the city’s main source of revenue.

W. P. Hackney in April 1880 stated that if he was elected as State Senator by the citizens of Cowley County and if the prohibitory amendment was carried, he would take an oath to carry it into full effect by suitable legislation. Hackney was elected in November 1880, winning by a majority of 774 votes. He kept his word and espoused prohibition.

D. A. Millington, editor of the Winfield Courier, was a strong supporter of Governor John P. St. John. When prohibition took effect, Millington used the Courier as a weapon in fighting intemperance, making life miserable for the druggists with his monthly reports of liquor and beer sales.

The only vocal opponents to prohibition were the Telegram and Frank Manny.

Frank Manny was born on March 13, 1843, in Halle Saxe, Mersburg, Germany, to a family of beer brewers and soon learned that trade. He came to America in 1862 at the age of nineteen, settling at first in St. Louis, Missouri. He emigrated to Kansas eight years later, taking up a claim in the south part of Rock township, Cowley County. Manny came to Winfield for a year or two and then went to Wichita, where he married Mary Chamberlain in 1877. In 1878 Frank Manny built a stone brewery and ice house at a cost of $13,000 northeast of the Winfield city limits. When taken into the city, the address of his residence and brewery, located on the north side of 3^rd avenue between Lincoln and Maris, was given as 804 east 3^rd. His ice and coal yard were located on east 9^th, Winfield. Frank Manny had six children: Carrie, May, Frank, Carl, Lee, and Ruth.

Frank Manny was engaged in a conversation with Jay Page, owner of a new saloon on the east side of Main street, the fourth building north of Ninth Avenue in Winfield, on June 1, 1878, when L. J. Webb, a prominent attorney, entered from the back room where card tables were kept, and approached Page and Webb in the billiard room, which had a pool table and a counter and bar at the back end where liquors were sold by the glass. Within about twelve feet of Mr. Page, Webb drew a revolver and shot Page. As a result, Frank Manny was one of the witnesses at the preliminary examination of the Page homicide on June 5, 1878. Manny testified that he saw Webb in the gambling room about ten minutes before the shooting playing cards with two other men; that when Webb came into the room, he looked as though he was mad; and that Webb had his eyes wide open and looked toward Page with a hard stare. Furthermore, Mr. Webb leveled his pistol so long at Jay Page before firing that Mr. Manny thought it was a joke intended to scare somebody. Mr. Manny was a witness at the trial of L. J. Webb held in September 1878 at Wichita, Kansas.

Frank Manny was a member of the Winfield gun club, which held their glass ball shooting matches at his farm northeast of Winfield. His scores were always high, as James Kelly, former newspaper editor and postmaster at Winfield, discovered in February 1879 when he received two loads of bird shot in his side at the hands of Manny. This shooting was covered by the Winfield Courier on February 27, 1879.

“Mr. Kelly, it seems, attended the phantom ball Friday night to see that the lights, fire, etc., were all right (as he has been doing in the absence of Mr. Manning), and having a key to the back door, came in that way. The managers of the ball objected to his coming in without a ticket, and ordered him to leave; and upon his refusing, Frank Manny and Ed Nickerson dragged him upstairs from the dressing room, across the stage, and pushed him down the front steps. In the morning Mr. Kelly borrowed the delivery wagon of Baird Bros., and asking Charles Payson to ‘take a ride with him,’ proceeded to the brewery northeast of town, where he found Frank Manny at work on his new stone building. On coming in sight of Manny, Kelly said, ‘There’s the man I want to see,’ and handing the lines to Payson, jumped out of the wagon, upon which Manny started on a run for his house. Kelly called out to him to stop; that he wanted to see him. Manny ran on to the house, which is near the brewery building, and procured a shotgun, which he loaded, and returning to the scene of action, met Kelly coming from the ice house, northwest of the stone building, and commanded Kelly to leave his premises or he would shoot him. Kelly told him to lay down his gun, as they could settle their matter in a minute without it, at the same time advancing toward him. They were about forty feet apart when Manny appeared with his gun. Manny, in an excited manner, kept ordering Kelly off, threatening to shoot while Kelly kept advancing toward him, saying repeatedly that he (Manny) would not shoot anybody.

“This was continued until Manny pushed him (Kelly) off with the muzzle of the gun, again telling him to leave the place or he would shoot him. Kelly opened his coat and told him he ‘didn’t think he would shoot anybody.’ Manny then stepped back about thirty feet, at the same time remarking that he ‘would see whether he would shoot or not,’ and fired one barrel, which took effect in Kelly’s arm and thigh, and turned him partly around. Manny then fired the other barrel, hitting Kelly in the right leg, and then drew a pistol and walked up to Kelly, telling him that if he did not get off his premises, he would bore a hole through him. Kelly then got into the wagon and was brought to town. He was placed under the care of Dr. Graham, who pronounced him not dangerously hurt. Manny was arrested, and waiving examination, was held to bail in $2,000 to answer the charge of shooting with intent to kill, at the next term of the district court.

“We wish to state in connection with this that Charles Payson knew nothing of the affair of the previous evening, when asked by Kelly to go with him, and had no suspicions of anything wrong until they arrived at the brewery.”

James Kelly persisted in taking Frank Manny to trial again and again on different charges after he collected the $350 awarded to him. He did not meet with any success in his efforts.

In June 1879 Frank Manny purchased a new ice and beer wagon. A year later Manny had completed fixing up a park near his brewery laid off into walks and drives, with beautiful beds of flowers, rustic arbors, swings, and other attractive features. He announced that it was his intention to make it a place of resort where all classes could repair with their families and enjoy a pleasant afternoon. He offered the use of his grounds free to schools or Sunday schools for picnic purposes, the only proviso being that the children be accompanied by their teachers, who were expected to keep the flowers, arbors, etc., from being injured.

In August 1880 over 300 colored people from Winfield, Wichita, Wellington, and Arkansas City celebrated the emancipation on August 1, 1834, of the slaves in all the British colonies. They formed a procession at the Santa Fe depot, and led by a band, marched to Frank Manny’s garden and park, where Rev. Weir made an introductory address and Rev. Daily made the opening prayer. A banquet followed attended by the honored guests, the Cowley County commissioners and Judge C. Coldwell, who gave an address. In the evening the religious part of the company held an entertainment at the courthouse and others held a ball at Manning’s Opera House. Both parties were conducted pleasantly and were highly enjoyed. It was noted that there were about 125 colored people in Winfield, 50 of whom were “exodusters.”

In December 1880 Frank Manny put up 100 tons of ice, five and a half inches thick. He also made hot-houses and at that time had 3,000 exotics and was propagating thousands more to provide house plants to Winfield citizens. After putting up 2,000 tons of ice, Mr. Manny left in late January 1881 for pleasure and business in Germany, returning in late March.

During Frank Manny’s absence in Germany, the prohibition movement was considered and slowly acted upon by the Kansas legislature. Kansas saloons began closing in January 1881. The Winfield saloons were all closed on March 12, 1881.

On April 1, 1881, Mr. Frank Manny sent a letter, which had far-reaching consequences.

“Herewith I send you a car load of barley, which please sell for me and remit proceeds after deducting all expenses. I have tried my best to dispose of it in our neighboring towns, but have not succeeded. I have invested $20,000 in my brewery, and I do not believe I could get $500 for it now on account of the prohibition law. I have over $1,000 worth of beer in my vaults and am not allowed to sell a drop. My barley and malt cost me 95 cents a bushel, but I cannot get 50 cents for it now. You have no idea how our people are upset by the new law. A year ago our town was prospering, not a house or store to be had, and now you will find from 100 to 150 houses vacated. Stores that brought $50 a month rent are empty. The state of affairs is such that even our prohibition people are getting scared and regret what they have done. If you should find anything for me there, please let me know.”

Manny’s troubles were just beginning. In late April 1881 he was indicted by a U. S. Grand Jury for his failure to post his internal revenue license in a conspicuous place. He had to pay $180 to cover a $50 fine and costs.

On May 5, 1881, Editor Millington of the Winfield Courier stated that Frank Manny’s letter written on April 1, 1881, had been published widely in other states as an argument against prohibitory liquor laws and emigration to Kansas, particularly Winfield and Cowley County, citing that the vote on the prohibitory amendment in November 1880 was passed by a majority of 322 voters in Winfield and 2,373 in Cowley County.

The article was followed by sixty-six statements from Winfield businessmen and leading citizens relative to the prohibition of liquor, some of which were revealing.

Cole Brothers, Druggists: Our trade is better than it was a year ago, retail not so good but have done more jobbing trade. We account for a falling off in retail by the fact that people have less money and there is very little sickness. It is much healthier through the country than a year ago. Do not see that the prohibition affects the trade. We shall not take out a license to sell liquor for medical purposes until a supreme court decision defines what the law is. We do not think it safe to make the required bond under the present state of doubt. We will not evade the law in any particular.

T. K. Johnston, Druggist: There is a material falling off in my business as compared with a year ago. I think it is one third less. I do not attribute this to a bad year for crops last season. I do not think it was a bad year. The county produced a large corn crop, which has been fed out, and an unusually large number of hogs have been marketed at good prices. A great many cattle have been marketed, a great deal of flour and wheat has been turned off, an unusual amount of butter, eggs, etc., has been sold, and I believe the farmers received more money than ever before. I intend to go west and find a place where I can do business with some degree of freedom. Under the prohibition law it is not safe to give bond and sell drugs for there are so many things in the drug and medicine line which contain alcohol in some proportion that one will be caught by some enemy before he is aware of breaking the law and his bond is forfeited. The law prohibits the sale of drugs containing alcohol, except by going through a routine that I do not intend to undertake.

Hon. W. P. Hackney, State Senator: The prohibitory law has been in force here for three months and works to a charm. There is very little drinking apparent in the community and I am convinced that the law will be a success. I have changed my opinion on the matter, which was formerly adverse to the practicability of such a law. Our county will be wealthier, more populous, and a better place to live because of this law.

Quincy Glass, Druggist: My general trade is better than it was a year ago. My prescription trade is less, because there is less sickness. I account for a better general trade by having a better stock and better location. I do not think the prohibitory law has affected my trade in any way. After May first I do not intend to sell liquor on prescriptions and that will effect my trade but slightly. After the supreme court shall have defined the law, I shall decide my course, but at present I do not deem it prudent to give bond and take out a permit. The law is putting druggists in an unpleasant situation, but the idea that it will be a damage to the city and county is all nonsense.

Quincy A. Glass, druggist, wrote a letter on May 16, 1881, to the Winfield Courier editor.

“It has been the custom for some time among a certain class of newspapers to take every opportunity of assaulting and vilifying the drug trade. Your paper has been no exception to the rest. These assaults have generally been borne with silence, if not patience. . . .

“Your assertion that our State Association is controlled by men who have been selling liquor as a beverage, under pretense of medical purposes, is untrue. Our president, Mr. R. J. Brown, of Leavenworth, bears as good a character as a Christian gentleman and temperance man as any man in Kansas, and the other officers and the members of the executive committee stand at the head of the profession in their respective localities. Our meeting at Topeka was held with open doors, and the proceedings were published in every paper in the State which chose to print them. I challenge you to find one sentence in the resolutions, or address of our president, recommending any violation of law. On the contrary, a strict compliance with the law was urged, and the recommendation to abstain from taking out permits was limited to the time necessary to make plain our status under the law by decisions in the courts.

“I do not find in the law any requirement to take out a permit and sell whiskey. I find that a druggist may take out a permit if he chooses, but nothing compelling him to do so. To my mind, the druggist who takes out the permit and goes through the humiliating process necessary to obtain one, is the man who makes acknowledgment that it is impossible for him to live without the liquor trade, and not the man who refuses to sell at all. And I would most respectfully suggest that the place for you to look for violations of the law is not among those who are out of the liquor trade entirely, but among those who are furnishing it to the people by permits and prescriptions.

“In conclusion, I will say that I have memoranda of at least one open violation of the law since May 1st, which is at the service of either yourself or the temperance committee if you have sand enough to engage in a prosecution which might make the law odious.”

In late June 1881 Mr. Frank Manny was arrested and brought before Justice James Kelly, his old nemesis, charged with selling beer in violation of the law. Manny’s defense secured a change of venue to Justice W. E. Tansey’s court. The trial began at 9:00 a.m., Monday, June 27, 1881, with an examination of jurors. Manny being represented by Judge W. P. Campbell, J. E. Allen, O. M. Seward, and Messrs. Soward and Asp. They were pitted against County Attorney Frank S. Jennings, appearing for the State. Up to noon 35 jurors had been called and 29 had been proved to be incompetent.

The Winfield Courier made the following observations on June 30, 1881.

“After dinner the examination of jurors was continued and soon developed into a lively fight. The question was raised of whether a member of a temperance organization was a competent juror in the case, on which Judge Campbell made an exhaustive argument, insisting that such a person was not and could not be competent to sit in the case. County Attorney Jennings replied in a brief but convincing manner. He stated that if Judge Campbell’s theory was correct, a horse thief could be tried only by persons not opposed to horse stealing, and that persons who were in favor of enforcing the laws would not be competent jurors in criminal cases. The court sustained the County Attorney, and the juror was passed. The jury was finally empaneled at 5 o’clock Monday evening.”

On June 28, 1881, it was learned that T. H. Jackson, a juror, was absent. Judge Tansey ordered Sheriff Shenneman to go to Vernon township and bring Mr. Jackson to court. At 2:00 p.m. the trial resumed. Mr. Jackson asked to be discharged as he was quite ill. Judge Tansey ruled that Mr. Jackson must serve unless positively unable to do so.

Highlights of the Manny trial were covered by the Winfield Courier reporter.

“The case was then opened by a statement from the County Attorney. Judge Campbell then arose on a ‘question of privilege’ and asked the court to rule that the state use but three witnesses for the proving of any one fact. After much discussion the court overruled the request. The defense then moved that the case be dismissed, alleging that the information did not state facts sufficient to warrant any action. After another lengthy argument, the court promptly overruled the motion.

“County Attorney Jennings then attempted to open the case, when the defense again objected and moved that the case be dismissed because ‘the complaint was not sworn to by a responsible party.’ Judge Campbell then made an exhaustive argument on a constitutional point. Mr. Jennings answered Judge Campbell at considerable length, and was followed by Mr. Asp for the defense, who closed the argument. The objection was overruled and duly excepted to, and the state proceeded with the examination of the first witness, Mr. Miller.

“Mr. Miller testified that he resided in Winfield, and that he knew where Mr. Manny’s brewery was. He was asked if he had been in Mr. Manny’s brewery between the first day of May and the 21st day of June, the latter being the date the indictment was made. The defense objected on the ground that the state should confine its proof of offense to the date mentioned in the indictment: the 12th day of June. On this objection Mr. Allen spoke, and cited authorities, though none of our Supreme court. The State replied with Kansas authorities bearing directly upon the point. Mr. Asp closed the argument on this point, and the court overruled the objection.

“The witness was allowed to answer the question; but instead of doing so, he laughed. The mouths of the audience cracked asunder, and his Honor got down under the counter to hold his sides. Witness then affirmatively answered the question. He also stated that he had drank something on Manny’s premises between those dates. The State asked in what building the drink was obtained. Before this question was answered, Judge Campbell requested his honor to instruct the witness that he was at liberty to refuse to answer any question that would tend to criminate himself. . . .”

[At a later date the Courier covered Mr. Miller’s testimony as well as many others. Mr. Miller stated that he had called for “ginger” and that he probably got what he called for, describing the drink as having the color of barnyard drainage; that he had bought a quart and paid twenty cents for it; that he had never become intoxicated on it and had never drank more than two glasses at a time; that it had about the same effect on him as lemonade.]

On July 7, 1881, the Winfield Courier stated that the jury in the case of the state against Frank Manny for selling intoxicating drink in violation of law was out for fifteen hours and failed to agree. The ballot stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal. As a result, they were discharged and a new trial set for Monday, July 18, 1881.

A new trial did not take place. Frank Manny was arrested five different times in July. He ended up closing his establishment after pleading guilty to keeping a common nuisance and paying about $300 for his defiance of the law. Mr. Manny turned his attention to his hot-houses, where he raised vegetables, plants, and flowers.

Before prohibition Manny purchased a green delivery wagon, lettered “Beer and Ice” on both sides. In April 1882 he appeared on the streets of Winfield with his wagon delivering ice, and over the word “beer” was tacked a neat strip of mourning crepe.

Mr. Manny remained out of trouble until April 1882 when he was arrested for unlawfully selling liquor. The case of the State vs. Frank Manny for violation of the prohibitory liquor law took place for the greater part of a week in May 1882. The jury disagreed. Another trial occurred in May 1884. Manny was found guilty on six counts. Motion for a new trial was overruled by the court. Mr. Manny was sentenced to thirty days in jail, payment of a $500 fine, cost of the suit. He was given a bond of $1,000 conditioned on his good behavior for two years. His case was appealed to the Supreme Court and Mr. Manny was released on bond until the final hearing. A month later Frank Manny and family traveled to Germany for a three months’ visit. In January 1885 Democratic Governor Glick pardoned Manny after receipt of a petition signed by over 300 Winfield Citizens. The Winfield Courier printed an item about this on January 15, 1885: “State vs. Frank Manny, violation of liquor law: on motion of County Attorney, and with leave of the Court, a nolle prosequi was entered and defendant discharged. Thus, after taking precedence on the criminal docket for several years, Frank ‘steps down and out,’ and Court will have to fire its first shot at some other victim at the beginning of the next term unless Frank is again in the toils when he ought to be honored with his old time place. His experience has been mighty costly.”

At 4:00 a.m., Tuesday morning, April 25, 1882, Frank Manny shot himself! For some time Mr. Manny’s chickens were being attacked and killed by skunks. Aroused by a chicken squawking, Mr. Manny rushed out with a pistol that he had borrowed from a neighbor and pursued a retreating skunk. Spotting the animal, Frank pulled the hammer back at about the same time that he stumbled over a pile of rocks and fell with the pistol pressed close to his side. The gun exploded, the ball penetrating the flesh and muscles of Manny’s left side, striking the fifth rib, and coming out about eight inches from the entrance. A perfect impression of the gun’s hammer was left, showing the violence of his fall. Mr. Manny experienced a painful but not serious wound which laid him up for over a month.

In June 1882 Frank Manny received a new monkey from New York, replacing his beloved pet after it was fed matches by some boys.

In February 1882 Governor John P. St. John visited Winfield, staying at the residence of D. A. Millington. During his visit Millington took him around Winfield, in the course of which they observed Frank Manny’s grounds, Mr. Millington informing the governor that Mr. Manny had turned the brewery into a greenhouse. In May Governor St. John made several speeches in which he referred to Frank Manny’s new occupation.

Mr. Manny was furious and wrote the following letter to the Topeka Commonwealth, addressed to Gov. St. John, in which he accused the governor of falsehood and of having “grossly, unfairly, and unjustly misrepresented” him (Frank).

“In your reported speech from the Leavenworth Weekly Press of May 11th, 1882, you say, in speaking of the breweries of this state: ‘One of the buildings which was owned and operated by Frank Manny, of Winfield, is now a green-house. What a grand revolution! In place of beer we find God’s own roses and verbenas. I saw Mr. Manny lately and he said: ‘I sleep well nights now; there is no prohibition law against roses and verbenas.’

“I also refer you to your speech at Wyandotte, as reported in the Kansas City Journal of May 20th, 1882, in which you make use of similar language, and use the expression: ‘Tell me prohibition does not prohibit, when it converts a brewery into a flower garden.’”

“Having now given your excellency some facts, I trust that they will ‘prohibit you’ from misrepresenting me in your public demonstrations in the future; and with the hope that you will not take the risk of being run over by one of the many beer wagons that constantly line the streets of our prohibition capital, I remain, Your humble servant, FRANK MANNY.”

The Cowley County Courant commented on June 29, 1882: “Frank Manny’s letter to the Governor is going the rounds of the press. It has been printed in almost every paper in the state except the Courier. That paper has sought to misrepresent it by quoting a portion of it.”

News dwindled about Frank Manny after this. The August 3, 1882, Winfield Courier had an item about Mr. Manny “cornering” the ice business in Winfield. They complimented him, stating that he stood by his old customers and did not skim them by increasing his price. Later that year they praised him for his ability to grow celery locally.

Winfield Courier, October 19, 1882.

It Does Prohibit a Little.

Ed. Weitzel was tried last week before Justice Buckman for selling beer and whiskey contrary to law. The trial lasted three days. Jennings & Troup and Henry E. Asp prosecuted and J. Wade McDonald and S. D. Pryor defended. Saturday evening the jury of twelve, after consulting two or three hours, brought in a verdict of guilty. The Justice assessed a fine of $200, and costs. The costs, attorney’s fees, and some little outside matters which he would not like to mention, must have cost him about $250, and there are yet five complaints against him to be tried. He took an appeal with a thousand dollar bond. If tried in the District Court, the witness who happened (?) to be absent will be present, there will be no doubt about the result, and it will probably cost him $1,000 in all. Frank Manny says that Ed. was an officer of the Good Templars and a warm advocate of the prohibition amendment and that he is now taking his own medicine so he must not squeal.

Cowley County Courant, November 17, 1881.

NINTH AVENUE HOUSE. E. B. WEITZEL, PROPRIETOR. Have just opened the house new, and offer the public better accommodations for the money than any hotel and restaurant in the state. $1.50 per day. Day board, $3.00 per week. House fitted throughout with new furniture. Five doors east of the Post office, Winfield, Kansas.

E. B. Weitzel opened up the “Ninth Avenue House,” located five doors east of the post office in Winfield, in November 1881. During the celebration of “Fair Week” in September 1882 Mr. Weitzel hired W. D. Smith to tend bar for him at $25 per month in the billiard hall, quietly selling drinks to customers.

It seems that Ed. commenced selling at his hotel stand, which he was using as a billiard hall, during fair week. He hired W. D. Smith to tend bar for him at $25 per month. He kept his business so close that it did not get out on him until last week. He had then sold intoxicat-ing liquors to the amount of about $60. Frank Jennings got hold of it, investigated the matter, and made six complaints against him and one against the boy, Smith, his bar tender. Ed. got bail for himself, but let Smith go to jail. Ed. was tried on one case, convicted and fined $200, and cost. Smith plead guilty and was fined $100. Ed. then plead guilty on another complaint and was fined $100. The fines and costs in all amounted to over $600, besides attorney fees and other expenses, with four complaints standing against. Verily the way of the transgressor is hard.

1885...

The Winfield Courier printed an article in June 1885 about Frank Manny’s hired man.

“Friday at about 4:30 a.m., when Frank Manny’s hired man was harnessing the teams of the ice wagon, lightning struck the roof of the barn, passed down the rafter, killing one of his mules, knocking down the other mule and two horses, also stunning the man. The roof was torn up in places, but no great damage was done to the building. Frank takes his bad luck philosophically. It was a fine span of mules and it will be a hard matter to replace the one killed. The man had a narrow escape and may congratulate himself on it being no worse. We learn later that the hired man was bridling the mule when the mule was struck. This is the first instance on record where a man was tougher than a mule.”

DR. FRANK MANNY AGAIN.

He Files a Second Petition For a Permit to Manufacture “Medicine” and Again

Gets Left.—The Reasons.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 30, 1885.

“Whereas, on the 20^th day of July, 1885, Frank Manny filed a petition, together with his bond, to obtain a manufacturer’s permit, which petition and bond were this day referred to the County Attorney for his advice and instruction in reference thereto. And now, on this 23^rd day of July, 1885, the County Attorney having returned such petition and bond, accompanied with his endorsement, in substance following: ‘The petition and bond of Mr. Manny are in compliance with the provisions of law, and, in my judgment, are sufficient in every respect. That since the Prohibitory Liquor Law went into effect in May, 1881, Mr. Manny has been one of its most bitter opponents and on the 11^th day of July, 1881, he pleaded guilty before Justice Tansey, of this city, to keeping a nuisance under this law, and at the same time several cases for illegal sales against him were dismissed at his costs. On the 24^th day of May, 1884, the applicant was convicted in the District Court of this county upon a trial by a jury on the 1^st, 6^th, 7^th, 9^th, and 10^th counts of the information of County Attorney containing ten counts for illegal sales of intoxicating liquor. A motion for a new trial was overruled by the Court and Manny was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 on each of five counts and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment in the county jail on the other count. From these convictions, however, Manny was pardoned by His Excellency, Gov. Glick. I am satisfied that Mr. Manny has not since his conviction in 1884 been manufacturing or selling liquor at his brewery, and while personally I would like to see Mr. Manny have the privilege of utilizing his property built before the enactment of this law, I cannot, with a proper respect for the law, as a public officer, recommend that the prayer of the petition be granted. And the matter being now fully considered, I find that said petitioner, during the time from 1881 to 1885, never applied for or obtained a manufacturer’s permit as provided by law, for all of which reasons I fully concur with the opinion of the county attorney, and notwithstanding the sufficiency of his bond and petition, the petitioner cannot now be considered a suitable person to be entrusted with a permit to manufacture intoxicating liquors and will therefore be refused.”

H. D. GANS, Probate Judge.

In the above matter and at the request of Mr. Manny and in his behalf, explanatory of the reason why he had not applied for a permit to manufacture intoxicating liquors, he was during the years 1881 to 1885 a resident of Walnut township and in which township he could not obtain a sufficient bond.

Winfield Courier, August 3, 1882.

Frank Manny brought in several car loads of Lake Erie ice last week. Frank is bound to stand by his old customers and, although he has a complete “corner” on the ice business, he does not put up the price and skim every customer that falls into his clutches.

Winfield Courier, August 10, 1882.

Frank Manny went up to Topeka Tuesday afternoon, presumably to give his old friend, Gov. St. John, a lift.

Winfield Courier, August 17, 1882.

Frank Manny is contemplating joining the ranks of the St. John men. The door’s open.

BLUEBAUGH DISCHARGED.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 20, 1885.

The case of the State against D. Bluebaugh came to a final in Judge Snow’s Court Monday, after two days trial. He was charged with violating the law in keeping on ice and selling extract of malt over the bar of his billiard hall at Arkansas City, at thirty-five cents per bottle. This extract of malt is a cute subterfuge for beer. It is nicely labeled as a medical beverage, good for everything under the sun. One man drank several bottles of it daily for his “kidneys and bad digestion,” and when these were well, he drank it to “cool off.” He drank beer—when he could get it—for the same purposes. The evidence showed that the beverage was drank as a substitute for beer—to fill up the beer vacuum. It is just as near beer as anything possibly could be—without being beer. Frank Manny’s tester was turned loose on it, and showed six percent alcohol; the same tester showed beer to have but five percent of alcohol, while it made simple, gentle champagne cider that isn’t considered strong enough to make a little spider-legged dude “full,” to contain seven percent of alcohol. The court decided that either Frank or his tester was badly off. No evidence that anybody ever got drunk on this stuff could be deduced. This was the point. If it wasn’t intoxicating, it was from under the law’s ban. It is sickening truck. Nothing but a cast-iron stomach could take in three or four glasses of it. Our reporter tried a spoonful, and had to get a twenty-pound weight to hold it in his interior department. It is worse than Arkansas’ river water—regular slop. But they can’t get beer, so the nearest thing to it, this slop, must be gulped. They must have something. It couldn’t be proven intoxicating, however, and was turned loose. Bluebaugh was happy, and will soon be rich, if he sells as much of that truck as the dozen or two witnesses said he had been selling. However, he is liable to get taken in on the beer substitute—if it gets too strong. It will be well for him to “luke a leedle oud,” and keep all boozy fellows from his premises.

[Both Arkansas City papers reveal that his name was “Bluebaugh.” Courier was very consistent in using the name “Blubaugh,” which is incorrect. Have corrected his name when I have caught this error. MAW]

Winfield Courier, August 24, 1882.

We have often heard it stated that celery could not be grown here. Frank Manny has a bed of very fine plants which seem to be thriving and as promising as one could desire.

Winfield Courier, October 19, 1882.

It has always been said that celery cannot be raised in Kansas. A Topeka man, it is said, has offered a thousand dollars to anyone who will raise a good crop of celery in Kansas and teach him how it is done. Frank Manny has as fine a crop of celery as we ever saw anywhere and knows how it is done. We advise him to hunt up that Topeka man and claim the thousand dollars.

Winfield Courier, October 19, 1882.

It Does Prohibit a Little.

Ed. Weitzell was tried last week before Justice Buckman for selling beer and whiskey contrary to law. The trial lasted three days. Jennings & Troup and Henry E. Asp prosecuted and J. Wade McDonald and S. D. Pryor defended. Saturday evening the jury of twelve, after consulting two or three hours, brought in a verdict of guilty. The Justice assessed a fine of $200, and costs. The costs, attorney’s fees, and some little outside matters which he would not like to mention, must have cost him about $250, and there are yet five complaints against him to be tried. He took an appeal with a thousand dollar bond. If tried in the District Court, the witness who happened (?) to be absent will be present, there will be no doubt about the result, and it will probably cost him $1,000 in all. Frank Manny says that Ed. was an officer of the Good Templars and a warm advocate of the prohibition amendment and that he is now taking his own medicine so he must not squeal.

[NOTICES.]

Winfield Courier, October 26, 1882.

EDS. COURIER: Please say to your readers that E. B. Weitzell is not a Good Templar and has not been for several months, Frank Manny to the contrary, notwithstanding. As Frank himself is not an active member of the Order, his statements concerning its membership ought not to be taken by the COURIER or its readers as entirely accurate. D. C. B.

Winfield Courier, November 9, 1882.

Sporting News. The Grand Annual hunt of the Winfield Sportsmen’s Club took place last Thursday. The club met at the Brettun House Monday evening and elected J. N. Harter and Fred Whitney captains. Each hunter, with the advice of his captain, selected his route, and most of them went out to the field the evening before. The following is the score.

J. N. Harter, Capt., 2,700; Jas. Vance, 1,400; Frank Clark, 1,140; Frank Manny, 200; Jacob Nixon, 1,780; Ezra Meech, 620; Sol Burkhalter, 610; Dr. Davis, 310; C. Trump, 150; Ed. P. Greer, 160; E. C. Sewart, 120; G. L. Rinker, 360. TOTAL: 9,550.

Fred Whitney, Capt., 110; G. W. Prater, 290; J. S. Hunt, 1,130; C. C. Black, 1,070; Jas. McLain, 1,000; A. S. Davis, 100; H. Saunders, 130; Q. A. Glass, 240; A. D. Speed, 240; Dr. Emerson, 190; J. S. Mann, 100; J. B. Lynn, 000. TOTAL: 4,660.

The gold medal was won by Mr. Harter. The tin medal will be won by J. B. Lynn. On next Wednesday evening the nimrods will banquet at the Brettun, at the expense of the losing side. The score made by Mr. Harter has never been equalled in this county.

[COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, November 9, 1882.

BAR DOCKET.

November A. D. 1882 Term, Cowley County Distict Court, to be Begun and holden on and From the 14th Day of November, A. D. 1882.

CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.

No.

299. STATE VS. HOMER l. WELLS.

303. STATE VS. DAVID V. COLE.

305. STATE VS. THOS. H. BASSYWATHER.

300. STATE VS. CHAS. G. HOLLAND.

310. STATE VS. FRANK MANNY.

312. STATE VS. JAS. T. SHEPARD.

315. STATE VS. CHAS. G. THOMPSON.

316. STATE VS. DAVID V. COLE.

317. STATE VS. TERRILL G. WRIGHT.

318. STATE VS. JOHN HEADRICK.

320. STATE VS. RILEY CONSTANT, ET AL.

322. STATE VS. MILTON HURST.

323. STATE VS. THOMAS QUARLES.

324. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.

325. STATE VS. WILLIAM H. COLGATE.

326. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.

327. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.

329. STATE VS. JAMES M. HAMIL.

330. STATE VS. THOS. QUARLES.

331. STATE VS. ANNA QUARLES.

332. STATE VS. HAMLIN BARLOW.

[DID NOT GO FURTHER AND LIST CIVIL DOCKET....THEY SHOWED FIVE DAYS FOR IT.]

Winfield Courier, November 16, 1882.

Frank Manny has been raising the German Carp. He stocked his pond some time ago, and reports them doing nicely. It is his intention to raise them quite extensively if he succeeds with the first stock.

Arkansas City Traveler, November 22, 1882.

The Courier Says:

Frank Manny has been raising the German carp.

Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.

Frank Manny beats the world for celery. He brought in stalks three feet long last Monday.

NOTE.

[At this point Manny/Senator Hackney/Mart Robinson/D. A. Millington become the focus on the controversial prohibition/anti-prohibition question of the day. MAW]

Winfield Courier, February 1, 1883.

A Monumental Fraud,

With an Attempt to Make Anti-Prohibition Capital,

And Establish Glickeries in Winfield.

A PETITION AND REPLY.

The following petition was circulated last week by Frank Manny, taken to Topeka, and presented by him to Senator Hackney.

WINFIELD, KANSAS, January 23, 1883.

HON. W. P. HACKNEY, State Senator, Topeka, Kansas.

Inasmuch as the Prohibition Amendment, as enforced, has always resulted in injury to the material development of our town—it having signally failed to accomplish the object sought, the suppression of the sale and use of intoxicating drinks—we would respectfully urge upon you the necessity of so providing for the enforcement of the law that its applica-tion shall be uniform throughout the State. If this is impossible, don’t sacrifice our town on the altar of inordinate devotion to an impracticable principle.

D. L. Kretsinger, John Bobbitt, S. G. Gary, H. S. Silver, J. P. Short, John M. Keck, J. B. Schofield, J. H. Vance, D. R. Gates, N. [?] Myers, W. H. Smith, M. L. Robinson, Vic S. Mays, Geo. Emerson, M. L. Read, L. F. Hess, J. Birdsell, A. A. Jackson, J. B. Richards, G. W. Miller, W. K. Davis, V. B. Bartlett, Chas. Schmidt, Allen Johnson, W. S. Mendenhall, J. N. Harter, Quincy A. Glass, F. J. Sydal, R. E. Wallis, Jr., Geo. C. Rembaugh, J. B. Lynn, M. B. Shields, J. P. Baden, J. F. Burroughs, G. L. Rinker, W. J. Cochran, C. L. Harter, D. V. Cole, J. E. Snider, J. S. Mann, Henry Goldsmith, R. M. Boles, John H. Hude, W. B. Simpson, Hudson Bros., Edwin Bailny [?], Horning & Whitney, James M. Stafford, Alonzo Wharton, W. H. Shearer, R. Allison, J. Headrick, John Forguay, H. F. Miller & Co., R. Carter, August Kadau, Beuler Buck, L. L. Beck, A. F. Kroan, D. H. Long, D. M. Harter, Joseph O’Hare, L. D. Zenor, J. W. C. Springston, J. N. Hall, R. J. Brown, M. C. Adair, E. C. Sengby, H. S. Bixby, O. [?C.?] A. Garlick, Geo. Daily [?], F. C. Nomsen, G. D. Headrick, D. C. [?] Carr, M. W. Tamner, F. L. Weaverling, J. B. Goodrich, J. G. Kraft, O. H. Herring-ton, C. H. Mayler [?], C. C. Harris, H. L. Snivers [?Shivers?], E. F. Blair, John J. Zant, M. H. Mount, B. F. Harrod, A. G. Wilson, E. C. Goodrich, Dick Silver, S. C. Smith, L. C. Harter, S. S. Major, W. Kenell, S. Burkhalter, A. Herpich, J. Flickinger, H. J. Weaver, W. H. Hudson, G. H. Wheeler, Charles Wm. Keef [?], Geo. H. Ratzer, C. W. Nichols, N. S. Ollie, Wm. W. Fleming.

NEXT COLUMN: J. L. Horning, W. C. Robinson, Chas. F. Bahntge, Wm. J. Hodges, A. T. Spotswood, Sam’l Bard, A. H. Doane, Wm. Whiting, A. E. Baird, L. C. Scott, A. D. Hendricks, R. C. Wilson, N. C. Clark, T. K. Johnston, G. W. Yount, Geo. M. Miller, John Dix, J. W. McRorey, G. H. Allen, G. E. Brach, C. Callins, F. M. Bruge, Geo. Leiman, M. Hahn, A. J. Burgauer, Joseph Finkelling, J. A. Waggoner, C. M. Wood, John Fraser, W. D. Shotwell, J. Fleming, Wallis & Wallis, E. C. Seward, A. C. Taylor, J. L. Hodges, O. M. Seward, W. H. Dawson, L. B. Lattiff, S. H. Crawford, E. A. Cook, George Olive, C. W. Lathrop, Elijah Perigo, A. Bixbee, Devore Parmer, J. Batchelder, John A. Edwards, Isaac Behner, J. E. Miller, C. B. Dalgarn, Wm. Whitford, Ed Lamont, Wm. H. Fox, H. L. Wells, F. R. Hinner, Robert M. Woodson, W. F. Dorley, Brettun Crapster, A. C. Bangs, Berry Scrogin, G. J. Lockwood, E. H. Nixon, W. J. Wilson, G. J. Swind, Geo. F. Cotterall, H. C. Chappell, Edwin G. Fitch, Jas. McClain, J. W. Beard, S. L. Gilbert, W. A. Tilston, R. A. Lett, Jerry Cland, J. G. Myer, S. B. Stills, W. L. Hands, B. F. Cox, John D. Pryor, J. L. Littington, Harry Foults, Philip Sipe, T. E. Cochran, J. Heller, J. S. Mater, C. Seifert, John Fashing, J. S. McIntire, A. N. Emery, W. H. Allen, J. A. Patterson, Morris, T. W. Hambric, B. J. Mays, John Likowski, Ed F. Nelson, F. B. Clark, W. L. Webb, John E. Silany, W. H. Strahan, C. H. Limbocker, Samuel Layman, F. E. Sears, Wm. Kelly, M. G. Troup.

AN ANSWER.

You do not seem to know what your duty is, and I will try and enlighten you with the information, that it is my duty under my oath to make laws, and it is yours to enforce them. What right have you to criticize laws, and parcel out those to be enforced, and those to be ignored?

Such petitions as you sent me, will do more to give aid and comfort to the band of outlaws now seeking to subvert constitutional obligations and duties in this state, than any one thing you can do. How is it your business, whether this or that law works well or not? You have taken an oath to see that all laws are enforced, and this coupled with your duty as men, should make you swift to throttle all infringements, and to punish all infractions. And I can assure you one and all, that I need none of your counsel or advice, and did I need any, I should look to men who have some regard for their constitutional obligation and oaths.

If you will devote your time to the performance of your duty as assiduously and vigor-ously as I do to mine, the discontent of the people at your pusillanimous duplicity and negligence of constitutional obligations would soon be among the things of the past.

To that portion of the signers who make their living by the sweat of other men’s brows, and who have no particular principles save and except schemes to amass wealth, I will say, that while the question of constitutional prohibition was before the people, you were unani-mous for prohibition; but, when you came to adopt facts instead of theories, and for the first time you realized that under the old system the drunken debauchee paid your municipal taxes, and that under prohibition you pay your own, of course you at once there and then lost all faith in your prohibition laws because such of you would rather the county would go to the diminution bow-wows if your taxes were thereby paid than to live in a heaven on earth and pay your own taxes.

Under the old saloon system, the people who drank liquor paid your taxes for you, be they residents of the city or county. Now you must pay your own, and hence “these tears.” Under the former system families went hungry for bread that you might fatten. Under the new system you enjoy no such franchises. What do you care for betrayed trusts or broken promises, whether made by me or the officers of the law, so long as you escape what you have so often by fraud and perjury, escaped—namely taxation. Hence your discontent, hence this petition.

Winfield is not suffering from the saloon system or of the want of it. What Winfield needs is more men of capital and less Shylock’s; men of large minds and fewer small ones; less money changers and more money makers. She wants manufactories, and business that will employ honest men at honest wages who have families to feed and support. That man who has money and will spend it in these enterprises is a public benefactor. You have none now, and the prospect for getting such is not flattering.

What Winfield wants is less such Christians as you fellows are, and more of the character patterned after Him who died on the cross; less cant, hypocrisy and double dealing; more honesty and earnestness of purpose. With all this change brought about, Winfield will prosper. Without it, all the saloons outside of Hell will not add one iota to the prosperity of your town. Either wake up and rub the mildew from the prosperity of your town, or continue to swap dollars and sit upon your own prosperity.

Others of you signed this because you are devoid of the moral courage to say no. Others for fear thereby you would lose a nickel, while a very few of you favor a change hoping that you might better your condition thereby. There are a large number of you who, I cannot believe, would have signed the petition knowing that it meant saloons in Winfield. I believe that many believed it only meant strict enforcement in the large cities of the state. Its lan-guage would admit of such construction to one who was off his guard.

Now in conclusion, permit me to say that until this Legislature adjourns, I shall continue to do all I can to make prohibition a success, though by so doing I “sacrifice Winfield on the altar of inordinate devotion to an impracticable principle.” And all petitions asking for a change, will only be that much waste paper. The people who voted for prohibition two years ago and whom I promised to help, will find me steadfast until my stewardship with them ceases—which will close with this session of the Legislature, after which they may select someone else to serve them. Until then you may look for no change in my conduct on this question. I, after reading your senseless twaddle in this petition, know that I am better pre-pared to take care of the interests of Cowley County than are any of you.

Trusting that time will soften the poignancy of your grief, the result of contemplating the possibility of having to pay your taxes yourselves, I remain your Senator,

W. P. HACKNEY.

[WINFIELD BUSINESSMEN, PROHIBITION, AND WATER WORKS.]

Arkansas City Traveler, February 7, 1883.

Its Inwardness. The Courier gets after that ill fated petition and ruthlessly exposes its true inwardness to the glare of day thusly.

The original is drawn in the hand writing of M. L. Robinson, the originator and principal owner of the waterworks scheme. That measure entails a heavy tax on the citizens, of which its projectors will have their portion to pay, besides this tax is likely to create a prejudice against the originators. It is said that there are three men who are willing to pay three thousand dollars a year each for the privilege of opening and running saloons in this city. This three thousand dollars a year, with a probable increase after the first year, would be about enough to pay the water rents saddled on to the city. Besides, Read’s Bank is supposed to hold Frank Manny’s paper to a large amount, which would be largely enhanced in value if Frank could get to making money in selling intoxicating drinks.

So to help out the securities of the bank and to provide a fund for paying the water rents without taxation, these hitherto ultra prohibitionists have become the most ultra advocates of saloons and breweries we have. For the sake of paltry dollars, they are anxious to open up the flood gates of drunkenness and debauchery upon our city and county. Hackney has an interest in the waterworks stock, and judging him by themselves, they concluded by fortifying him with a tremendous petition, he might be won over to help them in their schemes. It was an insult to him, and he has duly resented it.

Arkansas City Traveler, February 7, 1883.

A Petition and Its Reply.

The following petition was circulated last week by Frank Manny, taken to Topeka, and presented by him to Senator Hackney.

WINFIELD, KANSAS, January 23, 1883.

Hon. W. P. Hackney, State Senator, Topeka, Kansas.

Inasmuch as the Prohibition Amendment, as enforced, has always resulted in injury to the material development of our town—it having signally failed to accomplish the object sought, the suppression of the sale and use of intoxicating drinks—we would respectfully urge upon you the necessity of so providing for the enforcement of the law that its application shall be uniform throughout the State. If this is impossible, don’t sacrifice our town on the altar of inordinate devotion to an impracticable principle.

This petition was signed by 209 of the citizens of Winfield, many of whom have since stated that they signed under the explanation that the petition was to ask that laws be passed that would enforce the prohibitory law in the large cities of the State as effectively as it is enforced here—a construction which the ambiguity of the petition may well bear. Others say they never signed it or authorized their names to be attached. However that may be, the reception it received at the hands of Senator Hackney was warmer than the most sanguine of its originators dreamed of, and doubtless much surprised them. Here is the Senators’s reply.

GENTLEMEN: I am in receipt of the above and foregoing petition, and replying to those of the signers who are the sworn officers of the law, whose duty it is to enforce the same, I have to say: that were I to pay any attention to your petition, I would be as unworthy the confidence and support of the good people of Cowley County as you have shown yourselves to be, by signing such a paper as the above. You do not seem to know what your duty is, and I will try and enlighten you with the information that it is my duty under my oath to make laws, and it is yours to enforce them. What right have you to criticize laws and parcel out those to be enforced, and those to be ignored? Such petitions as you sent me will do more to give aid and comfort to the band of outlaws now seeking to subvert constitutional obligations and duties in the State, than anyone thing you can do. How is it your business, whether this or that law works well or not? You have taken an oath to see that all laws are enforced, and this coupled with your duty as men, should make you swift to throttle all infringements, and to punish all infractions. And I can assure you one and all, that I need hope of your counsel or advice, and did I need any, I should look to men who have some regard for their constitutional obligation and oaths. If you will devote your time to the performance of your duty as assiduously and vigorously as I do to mine, the discontent of the people at your pusillanimous duplicity and negligence of constitutional obligations would soon be among the things of the past. To that portion of the signers who make their living by the sweat of other men’s brows, and who have no particular principles save and except schemes to amass wealth, I will say, that while the question of constitutional prohibition was before the people, you were unanimous for prohibition; but when you came to adopt facts instead of theories, and for the first time you realized that under the old system the drunken debauchee paid your municipal taxes, and that under prohibition you pay your own, of course you at once there and then lost all faith in your prohibition laws, because such of you would rather the county would go to the deminition bow-wows if your taxes were thereby paid than to live in heaven on earth and pay your own taxes.

Under the old saloon system the people who drank liquor paid your taxes for you, be they residents of the city or county. Now you must pay your own, hence “these fears.” Under the former system families went hungry for bread that you might fatten. Under the new system you enjoy no such franchises. What do you care for betrayed trusts or broken promises, whether made by me or the officers of the law, so long as you escape what you have so often by fraud and perjury escaped: namely taxation. Hence your discontent, hence this petition. Winfield is not suffering from the saloon system or the want of it. What Winfield needs is more men of capital and less Shylock’s; men of large minds and fewer small ones; less money changers and more money makers. She wants manufactories, and business that will employ honest men at honest wages who have families to feed and support. That man who has money and will spend it in these enterprises is a public benefactor. You have none now and the prospect for getting such is not flattering. What Winfield wants is less such Christians as you fellows are, and more of the character patterned after Him who died on the cross; less cant, hypocrisy, and double dealing; more honesty and earnestness of purpose. With all this change brought about, Winfield will prosper. Without it, all the saloons outside of Hell will not add one iota to the prosperity of your town. Either walk up and rub the mildew from the prosperity of your town, or continue to swap dollars and sit upon your own prosperity.

Others of you signed this because you are devoid of the moral courage to say no. Others for fear thereby you would lose a nickel, while a very few of you favor a change hoping that you might better your condition thereby. There are a large number of you, who, I cannot believe, would have signed the petition knowing that it meant saloons in Winfield. I believe that many believed that it only meant strict enforcement in the large cities of the State. Its language would admit of such construction to one who was off his guard.

Now, in conclusion, permit me to say, that, until this Legislature adjourns, I shall continue to do all I can to make prohibition a success, though by so doing I “sacrifice Winfield on the altar of inordinate devotion to an impracticable principle.” And all petitions asking for a change will only be that much wastepaper. The people who voted for prohibition two years ago, and whom I promised to help, will find me steadfast until my stewardship with them closes—which will close with this session of the Legislature, after which they may select someone else to serve them. Until then you may look for no change in my conduct on this question. I, after reading your senseless twaddle in this petition, know that I am better prepared to take care of the interests of Cowley County than are any of you.

Trusting that time will soften the poignancy of your grief, the result of contemplating the possibility of having to pay your taxes yourselves, I remain your Senator,

W. P. HACKNEY.

Winfield Courier, January 25, 1883.

Walnut Township Primary.

The Republicans of Walnut Township met at Olive schoolhouse January 19th at 2 p.m. They organized by electing John Mentch chairman and S. E. Burger Secretary. Frank Manny, G. Brown, and J. A. Mentch were elected judges. The following persons were nominated.

For Trustee: T. A. Blanchard.

For Treasurer: Joel Mack.

For Clerk: Frank Manny.

For Justice of the Peace: J. L. King.

For Constables: J. C. Monfort, Jr.; J. A. Mentch.

For Road overseer, District 1: F. Arnold.

For Road overseer, District 2: .

For Road overseer, District 3: J. C. Roberts.

The following resolutions were adopted.

Resolved, That we request our Senator and Representative in the Legislature to use their best endeavors to reduce passenger rates on railroads to three cents per mile and freight rates be fixed at so much per ton per mile.

Resolved, That we are opposed to the commissioner system unless backed by a specific law, the mere collection of facts to report to the next Legislature having the people at the mercy of the roads for two years more.

Resolved, That the Secretary of this meeting furnish a copy of these resolutions to our Senator and Representative at Topeka and to each of the Winfield papers for publication.

JOHN MENTCH, Chairman.

S. E. BURGER, Secretary.

[COURIER THREATENED BY ROBINSON AND TROUP.]

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883. Editorial.

FREEZING OUT.

We understand that Robinson and Troup are going to freeze out the COURIER. We will keep from freezing if we can. In this number we have thrown in an extra hod of native coal which we can get, not only in this county but in Missouri and other places. We think we can keep it warm for awhile, at least.

[PROHIBITION AND HACKNEY.]

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

AN ARDENT PROHIBITIONIST.

It is stated that the man who originated the petition to Hackney in the “glorious cause of prohibition,” before that petition was circulated, approached County Attorney Jennings and asked him the following question in substance: “Now if the city council should pass an ordinance licensing the sale of lemonade and other drinks, something like the Topeka ordinance, and could thereby raise a revenue of $3,000 a year on the sale of liquor, would you not be willing to leave the prohibition and liquor business to the city authorities and refuse to prosecute?

[FRANK MANNY.]

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

DESIRES RELIEF!

Mr. Seaton offered a bill for the relief of Frank Manny, the Winfield brewer, whose name and fame have become national through the lectures of St. John, who held Frank up to the world’s gaze as a bright illustration of the success of prohibition, as having converted his brewery into a conservatory and turned his attention from the brewing of tonics Teutonic to floriculture. Frank has a large collection of plants and flowers and a large, pleasant, cool and shady garden, on the banks of a little creek, but he says his $25,000 brewery is no good for raising flowers, and he asks reimbursement from the state in the sum of $15,000 for losses suffered by reason of the prohibition law. C. C. Black.

[PROHIBITION OPPOSITION.]

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

A TREMENDOUS MEETING.

Robinson in the Role of Prohibition Leader of Antis.

MAYOR TROUP BITTERLY OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION.

TIPTON AS A WISHY-WASHY.

Another Crank.

When the COURIER of last week came out with the petition to Senator Hackney, his answer and our remarks, some few of our anti-prohibition friends were red hot, particularly those few who were specially hit. Our friend, Robinson, was the hottest of them, and after the call of the meeting for the following Monday evening of all citizens, irrespective of their opinions on the prohibition question, to consider the petition to Hackney, he spent about four days on the street, trying to infuse his anger into other citizens, particularly to show those who signed the petition and were not hit that they were hit; and in organizing a crowd to attend the meeting and defeat prohibition resolutions. A plan was adopted and was carried out in the meeting of Monday as far as the noise and howling was concerned.

On last Monday evening, at an early hour, the Opera House was packed full of people. Every seat and every foot of standing room was filled. There were not less than eight hundred, and possibly one thousand, present.

Judge Tipton, not one of the callers of the meeting, pushed himself into the position of temporary chairman, and nominated Rev. J. E. Platter as Chairman, who was elected. Mr. Platter refused to be silenced in that way, and nominated Hon. T. R. Bryan for Chairman, who was elected and took the chair.

Millington offered a resolution to the effect that this meeting is utterly opposed to the establishment of saloons in this city, and moved its adoption, which was seconded by numberless voices all through the hall.

Robinson jumped up and made a long, loud, and excited speech to show that the resolution was unfair and unjust.

Tipton moved to lay the resolution on the table. A vote was called on Tipton’s motion, and the saloon element set up a tremendous howl of ayes, repeated by comparatively few voices. The nays were general throughout the house. The Chairman could not decided, and a rising vote was taken. About 150 rose to lay on the table, and nearly the whole congrega-tion rose on the vote against the motion. The prolonged howling prevented the Chairman from deciding the motion, and Millington withdrew his resolution temporarily.

Robinson then got the floor and read in a loud tone, very slowly and excitedly, a long speech abusive of Senator Hackney, and stating, substantially, that he drew the petition to Senator Hackney, and knew what it meant; that it simply meant that the prohibition law was not as well enforced in other cities as in Winfield, and that somehow this operated against Winfield; that he was enthusiastically in favor of the “glorious prohibition amendment and law,” and the petition was to urge Senator Hackney to procure the passage of a law that would strictly enforce prohibition everywhere in the State; and that the closing clause, “If this is impossible, don’t sacrifice our town on the altar of inordinate devotion to an imprac-ticable principle, did not mean anything at all, but was only some big words which he had on hand, left over, which he threw in merely to round off the paragraph.

During this tirade of three-quarters of an hour the audience sat quietly and heard him out, except that Mr. B. F. Wood raised the point of order that abuse of Hackney was foreign to the object of the meeting as stated in the call. The Chair ruled the point well taken, but the orator was permitted to proceed.

When he yielded the floor, Millington remarked that, as the originator of the petition meant only prohibition in its strictest sense, there seemed to be no controversy, and he there-fore offered the following resolutions as the sense of the meeting, and moved their adoption after debate, which motion was seconded by hundreds of voices.

We, citizens of Winfield and vicinity, in mass meeting assembled, to express ourselves in relation to the matter of the late petition to Senator Hackney, do hereby declare;

First—That we are utterly opposed to the establishment of saloons in Winfield, or in this county.

Second—That we are opposed to the re-submission of the prohibitory amendment.

Third—That we are earnestly in favor of such legislation as will make the prohibitory law more effective.

Fourth—That we heartily endorse and will stand by Senator W. P. Hackney in his efforts to make the prohibitory law more effective, and honor him for his fearless and manly course on this question.

Fifth—That we request our Senator and Representatives to continue their efforts to strengthen this law and to guard against unfavorable legislation.

Sixth—That the prohibition law has been much better enforced in this city and county than any former law in relation to the sale of intoxicating drinks.

Seventh—That, through the operation of the prohibitory law, drunkenness and the sale and use of intoxicating drinks have very largely decreased in our midst; that our city has become largely more orderly and moral than before it went into operation, and that all legiti-mate business is more prosperous and flourishing than it could have been in the presence of saloons.

Eighth—That it is our honest conviction that the temperance movement in Kansas has been a blessing to thousands of our citizens.

Rev. J. E. Platter then made a short, concise, and practical speech showing the obvious meaning of the petition as interpreted by almost everybody and expressing his strong and earnest dissent from its evident objects.

Mayor Troup then got the floor and spoke loudly and slowly for about an hour and a quarter with the evident intention of worrying out the temperance people in the congregation and making them leave the hall, but they quietly heard him out. He took an entirely different view of the meaning of the petition from that of the originator. He signed that petition because it meant to him that the prohibitory law is an utter and absolute failure; that the amendment ought to be repealed; that it urged Hackney to vote for the re-submission of the amendment, and for revenue purposes, saloons ought to be re-established in Winfield. He knew that prohibition in Winfield was an utter failure; for there were two of the dirtiest saloons here, where the stench of liquor offended the nostrils of the noble mayor (who is also assistant county attorney and don’t prosecute) and that three awful saloons are known as Express offices, and are bringing in intoxicating drinks by railroad every day.

Mr. T. H. Soward was called out and took the floor. Troup tried to choke him off by interruption and the audience tried to yell Troup down. Soward in a gentlemanly manner got through with his remarks in a few minutes.

Judge Tipton took the floor for the purpose, evidently, of worrying out the temperance people, for he had absolutely nothing to say but rambled on for fifteen minutes with the most wishy-washy and senseless jargon we had ever heard from the lips of a sane man.

Another old crank got up with a nose about three by six and as red as a beet, and howled about Hackney.

It was evident from the first that three-fourths of the audience at least, were in favor of passing the resolutions offered by Millington, and the scheme of Robinson was to prevent a vote being taken on them by howling. This was kept up until the chairman got so disgusted that he pronounced the meeting adjourned, and the crowd began to move toward the door and go out.

Robinson sprang upon a chair and called the meeting to order. Millington sprang upon another chair and called out swinging a paper in his hand. The audience halted a few moments in quiet, and Millington said in a loud voice:

“The question in order before the house is on the passage of the series of resolutions presented by me. All in favor of the passage of these resolutions will say, Aye—meeting with a general response of “Aye” by nearly the whole crowd. He then said; those opposed will say, “No.” A few feeble responses were heard and he proclaimed that the resolutions were carried by an overwhelming majority. The crowd then continued to pass out amidst such a noise that nothing could be heard.

Robinson sprang upon the stage and swung his arm yelling something at the top of his voice about coming to order, but he could not be heard and the audience continued to pour out.

The writer remained until nearly all the audience had passed out and the lights were turned down. Nothing more was done and he left.

This meeting demonstrates that the people of this city are overwhelmingly in favor of all the above resolutions, and particularly enthusiastic in their endorsement of Senator Hackney.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

THAT SALOON BUSINESS.

Speaking of the petition to Senator Hackney in behalf of saloons in Winfield and the remarks in the Kansas City Journal from its Topeka correspondent, the Wellingtonian remarks:

“While it is true that Cowley County was the banner prohibition county of the state, it is equally not true that Winfield was ever anything of a banner prohibition city. None know this any better than the Journal’s clever Topeka correspondent. None better than he know that the businessmen of Winfield, as a class, never were prohibitionists. He also knows what he dare not tell, for the effect it would have, that the ‘prominent manufacturer and ice dealer’ is, or rather was, a manufacturer of beer, only. There are in the town, exclusive of the hotels and drug stores and including the two banks, eighteen that could by any decent reasoning, be called ‘largest’ business houses. Of this number—fifteen of these same ‘largest business houses’ never were prohibitionists. So that leaves but three to be accounted for, and the correspondent does that for two of them, namely: the bank and hardware, and leaves but the grocery house to be accounted for, and we can do that. Winfield, like other towns of its like, and for purpose of this sort, too often counts every peanut vender, billiard saloon keeper and lunch counter president, as ‘prominent’ businessmen.

“Again: had the astute correspondent said, something over 200, instead of almost 300 names, he would have impressed us as being nearer the truth. It would also have been better had he told his readers, that many of these same businessmen allowed themselves to be classed as prohibitionists, when in reality, they were not; but on the contrary, their sympa-thies were all the other way. Senator Hackney himself was not; and is perhaps not yet, a prohibitionist, as he himself says in this interview, and yet it would be hard for Journal readers to understand that. While it is true that Winfield has always been rated a prohibition city, yet these same businessmen have no settled convictions upon this or any other subject, any farther than it may effect their pockets and their standing in society. There are more people in Winfield whose lives go to disprove the Bible doctrine, ‘a man cannot serve God and Mammon,’ than any other town in the state. Hence it will be seen that any apparent reaction in this town is not much of a ‘pointer’ and bears with it but very little significance.”

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

A SLIGHT MISTAKE.

Mayor Troup in his speech Monday evening complained that Hackney in his letter of reply called him a money changer.

Why, my dear fellow, Hackney did not call you a money changer. You neglect the coat the senator prepared you, don the coat made for the other fellow, and complain that it don’t fit. Please read carefully the first part of the letter about sworn officers of the law disregard-ing their oaths and their duties and doing all they possibly can do to subvert law and render aid and comfort to outlaws. That is the coat made for you. The onslaught on money changers was prepared for the other fellow. Are you not the mayor of the city whose sworn duty it is to see the laws are enforced? Are you not assistant and acting county attorney whose duty it is to prosecute violations of the law? Did you not state in that speech that you knew of two of the meanest, dirtiest kind of saloons which have been selling intoxicating drinks for a long time in this city, known as express offices? Have you prosecuted these men for violation of the law? Have you closed up these places as nuisances? Are you not owned body and soul by the money changer who will use you just as long as you will do his dirty work and squeeze a nickel out of you and then sell you to someone else or kick you one side among the rubbish?

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

JUST RIGHT.

Some conservative prohibitionists have admitted that Hackney in his answer to the petitioners, handled the originators of the petition too roughly. Now if they knew all the badgering and attempted intimidation these same men had heaped upon the Senator to induce him to violate his promises to his constituents before his election, to violate his oath to sup-port the constitution, and to second and help them in their schemes to have saloons opened in Winfield and the law set at defiance, they would say as we do, that his answer was just right. Nothing that the popular senator has ever said or done has made him so many enthusi-astic friends as that letter. Hundreds of men have called into our office to express their warm-est approval of the letter and of course on this question, and many of them who have always opposed him politically, say now that they would vote for him for anything he should want. We believe that a majority of those petitioners would now vote the warmest approval of his letter.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

Otter Scriblings.

To our Hon. Senator W. P. Hackney is due the thanks of every citizen of Cowley County for the worthy manner in which he disposed of the late petition sent him from Winfield, and if every person taking the oath of office to support and enforce the laws of the state had done their duty as well as our Hon. Senator, I doubt no prohibition would have been a success throughout the entire state. And we think the broadside he pounded to their whiskey ranks will prevent their petitioning to him again. TELLER.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

Frank Manny is confident that his bill for $15,000 damages against the State on account of closing his brewery will pass.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

M. L. Robinson’s amateur circus company which performed so satisfactorily to them-selves Monday evening at the Opera house are expected to take the circuit and will next perform at Wellington and Wichita.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

Is He Fish or Fowl?

A Remarkable Record Made by a Remarkable Man.

“A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING.”

[NOTE: FIRST PART WAS SET UP IN TWO COLUMNS.]

[Left column] FOUR WEEKS AGO. “Suppose the City Council were to license three persons at a thousand dollars each to sell ‘soda water and other drinks, what would you do?’”

M. L. Robinson to County Attorney Jennings.

[Right column] THIS WEEK. “Friends, let us not do anything to injure the glorious cause of prohibition, so near to our hearts!” M. L. Robinson at meeting Monday night.

[Left column] PRESTO! “Inasmuch as the Amendment as enforced has always resulted in injury to the development of our town . . . . We would respectfully urge upon you the necessity of so providing for its enforcement that its application shall be uniform throughout the state. If this is impossible, don’t sacrifice our town on the altar of inordinate devotion to an impracticable principle.” Petition written by M. L. Robinson.

[Right column] CHANGE! “That petition meant that the law should be enforced in other parts of the state as well as here, and did not mean saloons in Winfield.” M. L. Robinson’s explanation of the petition.

Above we present four utterances from the tongue and pen of M. L. Robinson. Placed as they are the reader will have no difficulty in determining that M. L. Robinson is either a vacillating hypocrite or a knavish fool.

But in order to show the peculiar manner in which this gentleman works to secure the backing of citizens in his schemes, we will be pardoned for referring to the above chronologically.

Some four weeks ago Robinson approached County Attorney Jennings and in the very cautious manner shown in his language above quoted, intimated to him (Jennings) that three men stood ready to pay a thousand dollars each for a license to sell “soda water and other drinks” in this city, and asked him what he would do, in his official capacity, if such license was granted and they opened up. Mr. Jennings very quickly told the gentleman that he would prosecute all infringements of the law to the fullest extent—that he had sworn to enforce the constitution and the law, and should regard his oath and his duty without fear or favor. This was a fitting reply to such an insult, and Mr. Robinson sought elsewhere to find a man who would betray his honor, his pledges, and his oath to accommodate a “smiling, influential banker.” Strange as it may seem, he settled upon Senator Hackney as the man. Wily in all his undertakings, he knew that backing must be secured for such a proposition, so a petition, ambiguous in language and uncertain in construction was drawn and placed in the hands of a man interested in opening saloons, and by him circulated. Upon its face the petition meant something or nothing, or anything. To the businessman, glancing at it in the hurry of busi-ness activity, it meant just what his convictions on the prohibition question were. To the pro-hibitionists it meant “Strive to have the law enforced in other places as it is here.” To the anti-Prohibitionist its true and real animus could be shown in a moment. Thus, in the hurried way petitions are always signed, this harmless looking document was signed by lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and citizens generally who would no more lend their names to assist M. L. Robinson in his efforts to subvert constitutional obligation and trample law under foot than they would start on a trip to the moon. The petition was then taken to Topeka and placed in the hands of Senator Hackney, by Frank Manny. Had the petition been a fair and square declaration of principle, either for or against prohibition, every sane and sensible man knows that it would have received respectful and candid consideration at the hands of Senator Hackney. But he knew a few things that the signers of the petition did not know. He had spent the Sunday before in Winfield and at that time learned of Mr. Robinson’s proposition to County Attorney Jennings. He also knew that he was equally interested with Robinson in a scheme whereby three thousand dollars saloon tax would materially benefit both of them in a financial way—and this scheme was the water-works business. He looked at the petition and saw that it was in Robinson’s hand-writing. He also saw it was not a fair, square statement of principle, but contradictory, ambiguous, and calculated to deceive. In an instant he saw through it all, as would everyone who signed the petition had they known these facts. He saw that M. L. Robinson, seeing an opportunity of adding to his hoarded wealth, was willing and anxious to open up the “flood gates of drunkenness and debauchery” in our city. He knew that Robinson had approached a sworn officer of the law with intentions looking to that end, and receiving no encouragement, had come to him, thinking that he, if fortified with a respectable petition and with the same personal interests involved, would betray the pledges made by him to the people of Cowley County, turn his back upon the constitution and his oath to support it, and sell himself and his people for gold.

M. L. Robinson little counted upon his man when he reckoned that W. P. Hackney could be cajoled or influenced into such an action. Turning upon his maligner, he hurled the petition back into his teeth in words of burning indignation—words that will live in the hearts of the people of Cowley County as long as love of honor lasts, and words that will rise to haunt the author of that petition until he passes beyond the scenes of human weakness. With that desire for fairness so characteristic of Senator Hackney, he did not confine the full measure of his wrath to the one at whom it was directed, but supplied a part of it to some officers of the law. This loop-hole was eagerly seized by the doughty banker, and through it he seeks to wreck his vengeance on the Senator by drawing into the fight the men who had signed his petition, and who hoped to express a matter of principle, knowing nothing of the sordid motives and dark pit-falls behind it. In this he partially succeeded, until the above facts were brought out at the Monday night meeting.

When a resolution, severely condemning Mr. Hackney, was offered, to defend the Senator from this gross and venomous assault, Rev. Platter opened the eyes of the people to Robinson’s duplicity by making a statement of the facts, as given him by Mr. Hackney. Since then one of the best men who signed that petition, a citizen as highly respected as any in the community, said to us: “Until I learned the true inwardness of this matter, I thought Hackney’s letter was ill timed and intemperate. I now think he did just right, and wonder why he didn’t make it hotter.” Others of our businessmen, signers of the petition, have expressed the same feelings; and all of them, except a few who were in collusion with Robinson, or whose souls are owned (through the medium of mortgages or overdrafts) by him, will take a similar view, and, instead of feeling outraged toward Hackney, will put their anathemas where they belong.

By his action in this matter, M. L. Robinson has lost the confidence of all the better classes of this community. Having betrayed the principles he has heretofore, and now pretends to avow—betrayed men into supporting him with a false document, written with the intention of deceiving, he has certainly placed himself in an unenviable light before his fellow men, and must of needs, reap the consequences. A man who works honestly, openly, and fairly against a cause he believes to be wrong, is a freeman exercising the highest and noblest rights of citizenship decreed him by the Constitution of a free country. But when a man steals forth under the cloak of hypocrisy, and attempts to subvert law and unduly influ-ence those in whom the people have vested power, he sinks below the level of a freeman, and becomes a menace to liberty and good government.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

Frank Finch tells a good joke on M. L. Robinson, and which portrays certain traits in the gentleman’s character so clearly that we reproduce it.

Frank and Troup were coming into town, Monday evening, before the meeting. When passing near M. L.’s house they were hailed, and that worthy came rushing up to the buggy, stuck his head under Troup’s nose in that confidential manner so peculiarly his own, and said: “We’ve got ’em on the hip! Now don’t be too strong anti-prohibition. We want to go slow. Just keep cool; we’ve got the resolutions!” He had his resolutions, and he has them yet—in his pocket. By the way, how do the anti-prohibition boys, who turned out so nobly at his solicitation, like the way he kicked them overboard and flopped back to the “glorious cause of prohibition, so near to his heart?” His eagle eye must have detected a nickel on the side of prohibition that he hadn’t seen when he was negotiating with them.

[MONUMENTAL FRAUDS.]

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

DON’T MISTAKE.

We do not believe half of the gentlemen called “monumental frauds” by the COURIER are such. We believe the originators of the petition formed a majority of the number of those who understood the object. Enterprise.

Please notice, Mr. Enterprise, that the COURIER did not call anybody a “monumental fraud.” You find that expression only in the headlines, which read as follows: “A MONU-MENTAL FRAUD, WITH AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH GLICKERIES IN WIN-FIELD.” Then follows the petition to Hackney. No other construction can be placed upon the words than that we pronounced the petition a monumental fraud, which it really was. But if the term is considered personal, it could mean but one person, for it is used in the singular number, “a monumental fraud.” If such construction were placed upon it, no one need hesitate in pointing out the particular person whom the coat would fit.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Senator Hackney ventured to come down Saturday, without a body-guard. But little excitement prevailed, and he returned Monday. During his stay his office looked like a reception room and was thronged with citizens.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

We wonder that the Telegram critic who discovered Hackney’s “lamentable ignorance,” and who is so familiar with Dickens, did not notice the striking similarity of Mayor Troup’s “simplicity,” in his open letter, and Uriah Heep’s “humbleness.”

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Frank Manny came near losing one of his hot-houses Sunday night. Someone had laid a wet coat on one of the flues, and during the night it caught fire. The fire spread to the greenhouse and before it was discovered much damage had been done.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

During the past week banker Robinson has fretted and fumed and worried himself nearly into a fever over some fancied reference to him in late issues of this paper. He has grown hollow-eyed and haggard, and mopes around seeking to inflict people with the tale of his wrongs. At first he found a few sympathetic listeners, but now they merely smile and wag their heads when he raves. We, together with other friends who never forsake the afflicted, hope to work a thorough reformation before we leave him. In this undertaking we have the best wishes of the whole community.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Mayor Troup’s letter on Senator Hackney is a wonderful document. Withering in sarcasm and running over with scintillating invective, it metaphorically dangles the mangled scalp of our Senator before a horrified public. We understand he wrote it with a stick. What would it have been if he had written it with a steel pen? The thought is too saddening for contemplation.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Last week’s COURIER made some unhappy souls hereabouts. One of them came down and stopped his paper, his brother’s paper, and his uncle’s paper, and from indications we were lead to believe that he would have stopped the whole edition had it been the right time of the moon. Our subscribers will rejoice with us that the publication is still allowed to go on.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Senator Hackney has been overrun with letters and numerously signed petitions thanking him for his stand on the prohibition question. The people are with him in his stand for law and order as against hypocrisy and Shylocks.

[CORRESPONDENTS.]

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.

Valley View Items.

While we are not uninterested spectators of Winfield’s agitation, we hope prohibition will not suffer for want of charity on the part of its friends. We cannot believe that the good sense of the masses are in favor of either free or licensed saloons to infuriate our sons to madness and drag them down to drunkard’s graves. With all of the evidence before our eyes, are we willing to re-open this traffic and fill our jails with criminals and our poor houses with paupers? No, no! This cannot be. Our young men are most certainly worth saving. Do not let us lead them into temptation.

[PROHIBITION.]

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

COMMENT IS UNNECESSARY.

His allusion to my approaching county attorney Jennings is but a tissue of falsehood and distortion. . . . . We asked him (Jennings) what he would do in case the council as talked granted license to sell soda water, pop, and other drinks as done in Wichita and other towns.

M. L. Robinson in the Telegram.

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

REJECTED.

Last week Wednesday the House carried Hon. C. R. Mitchell’s motion to reject the joint resolution re-submitting the prohibitory amendment by a vote of 65 to 51. In the roll call we find the names of Mitchell and Weimer for rejection and Johnston against rejection. What do the prohibitionists who voted for J. J. Johnston think of that?

[PROHIBITION.]

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

COULDN’T PULL IT THROUGH.

The Commonwealth’s tow-line failed to pull that re-submission of the prohibitory amendment joint resolution through the House. That tremendous effort of correspondence with antis all over the state to prove that there were 609 saloons in the state of which five were in Cowley County all went for naught. Try something easier next time.

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

M. L. ROBINSON’S DEFENSE.

How the “Courier” was to be Squelched.

“Oh, that Mine Enemy Would Write a Book!”

M. L. Robinson has another defense in an article in the Telegram of last week. We are glad he has got mad enough to write over his own signature instead of skulking behind an assumed name. When he goes around and pleasantly persuades men to agree with him he is a success, but when he gets howling mad and rants, and when he writes a newspaper article and vituperates, he is an utter failure, and hurts himself more than anyone else.

He defends himself by calling us such names as “whited sepulchre,” “vile wretch,” “enemy to truth,” “senseless old idiot,” “old bag of wind,” “dog,” “falsifier,” “base,” “treacherous,” “dastardly,” “animus,” “apostle of temperance,” “stole the livery of heaven,” etc., and says he “could write volumes of such stuff,” which he calls “red-hot coals.”

He remarks that, as he is “opposed to mobs,” he “will let the law (of morals and decency) take its course.”

Ah! Was that his little game? Had he tried to get up a mob to “squelch” us and the COURIER, and failed? When he found not more than two or three, if any, who would like to have it done and they as cowardly as himself, did he then conclude to announce that he would not mob us? How kind!

But he “will let the law take its course.” That beautiful threat has a hole to crawl out of in the parenthesis, “of morals and decency.” Well, as we are very careful to make no charges until we have the proofs at hand, we do not fear the law. Were he on the bench, we might fear being hauled up and fined two hundred or two thousand dollars for contempt, but that danger is spared us.

We have had many dark hints about some terrible punishment for opposing and exposing his jobs, frauds, and schemes, but could not discover exactly how we were to be “squelched.” We had hints that he had such tremendous power and influence everywhere that he would turn us out of the post office, take the county printing from us; the city printing, too; induce our subscribers to dessert us; induce businessmen to withdraw their advertising and their job work; create a tremendous public sentiment against us; start a rival newspaper; “write volumes of such stuff,” etc. Some of these things would hurt; but the fear of them would not excuse us for sitting on a shelf, “like a Stoughton bottle,” and letting him draw two hundred thousand dollars out of the taxpayers of the city, and establish saloons in the city, without a protest or an attempt to expose his jobs.

Then we had some doubts of his power to do all these things. He has certainly demon-strated his ability to take away from the COURIER one advertisement and three subscrip-tions, and his ability “to write volumes of such stuff;” and we do not doubt his ability and disposition to turn the screws and squeeze hard some of his customers with matured notes or overdrafts due his bank, unless they should do his bidding. Of course, he can hurt us in many ways; but we shall continue to do our duty by our readers and the community, all the same.

We don’t believe he can “squelch” us with a mob, or stir up popular indignation against us; and we don’t believe that, when he “writes volumes of such stuff,” it will hurt us as much as it will him. He may go on with the “volumes” under the assurance that we shall never descend so low as to write any “such stuff” in reply.

The COURIER has often been criticized because it did not “pitch in” and “make it hot” for such men. Our excuse is that we have always had a horror of doing any man an injustice, and preferred that ten guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer injustice at our hands.

Now, supposing that M. L. has told the truth about us, we do not see how it proves any-thing in his defense. Does it prove that the rumors of fraud which come from Missouri are false? Does it prove that he did not make money out of that sale of stock and purchase of bonds of this county when he was the trusted agent of the county? Does it prove that he did not get up and work through a scheme to make one or two hundred thousand dollars off from the taxpayers of this city? Does it prove that the franchise he asked was almost valueless, as he asserted and spent hours and days to prove to the council and citizens? Does it prove that the present franchise, of not half of the value of the first proposed, is not claimed by him to be worth one hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Does it prove that he did not get up a scheme to establish saloons in Winfield, that the license money might enrich his pockets? Does it prove that he would not sell his best friend for a dollar, if he could make more out of him in some other way? Does it prove that he is worthy of any confidence or trust? Does it prove anything to his advantage? We think not.

He accuses us of having objected to his name prominently on a card, and of saying that M. L. Robinson is getting too much strength, and must be kept down. No such thing ever occurred in our presence. We have used no such language; but since he gives us the hint we will say it now, and add that it is dangerous to trust such a grasping unprincipled man with anything that he can sell, or by any scheme turn to money for himself.

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

Some writer has been devoting a good deal of attention to the brain weights of great men. He finds that Gambetta’s brain weighed thirty-nine ounces and those of Napoleon and Webster, fifty-seven. Mart Robinson’s brain has not been weighed yet. In the interests of science, it ought to be done.

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

Frank Manny contemplates turning his brewery into a chemical laboratory for the manufacture of “Stomach Invigorator.” If he would include an efficient “Liver Regulator” among his compounds, our friend Mart Robinson might interest himself in the scheme. His liver is evidently disordered.

[CORRESPONDENTS.]

Winfield Courier, February 22, 1883.

Floral.

Real estate has advanced at least ten percent the last year, and our people are prosperous in spite of the croakings of “the monumental fraud.” In this connection, I would say that W. P. Hackney’s friends admire his manly independence and honor in redeeming his pledges in defense of prohibition. He sticks well and will do to tie to. . . .

[CORRESPONDENCE.]

Winfield Courier, March 1, 1883.

COMMUNICATED.

After returning from the public meeting at the Opera House on last Monday night, I felt completely unstrung, my feminine nerves not being accustomed to such a strain. It was a long time before I fell asleep. Toward morning, however, I fell into a troubled slumber. I dreamed a dream which was possibly suggested by incidents in the meeting.

THE DREAM.

I dreamed that I was standing on the corner of Main St. and 10th Avenue. The street was full of people, the cause of whose coming together I could not at first discern. My eye soon caught sight of a banner down the street, and behind it I could distinguish what seemed to be the outline of a procession. They were evidently coming in my direction, so I waited to see the sight. As they drew near I saw that the bearer of the banner was Mr. Frank Manny. On the banner was inscribed the words, “Prohibition Forever.” Following the leader was a magnificent chariot drawn by four milk-white steeds, and in this chariot was seated with arms folded in solitary grandeur, Mr. M. L. Robinson. The reporter of the Telegram was standing by and I asked him what that meant, and he said, “There is the author of a grand declaration and petition in favor of Prohibition, and the four milk-white steeds are symbolical of the purity of this mission.”

After the chariot came the Mayor and City Council in carriages. Some Councilman seemed to be missing, however. Next came a hearse with three men on top bearing petitions to the City Council. I could not read all that was written on them, and the men wore black masks. I could, however, distinguish the words “petition,” “soda water and other drinks,” and the figures “$1,000.” Then came a procession of men on foot who looked rather dazed and bewildered. As the procession moved on, a party of women in which I found myself, followed along on the pavement to see what was going to happen.

When we came abreast of the front of the procession the solitary man in the chariot saw us, and waving us back with his hand, said, “This is no place for women!”

We dropped back a little, but when some men who were following along said, “Go ahead. You have just as much right to see this performance as anybody!” we kept on.

The procession passed east on 11th Ave., to Millington Street, and thence south until they came in front of Senator Hackney’s residence, where they paused. Then the man in the chariot said, “No. 1 to your post!” and straightway one of the masked men on the hearse dismounted and went forward and took hold of the bridle of Mr. Manny’s horse. Mr. Manny dismounted and carrying the banner in one hand and a roll of paper in the other, went up the steps and rang the door bell. After a pause Senator Hackney came out. He took the paper, which was smilingly handed to him, and read it aloud. I may not remember the exact words, but it ran somewhat thus:

“Inasmuch as the prohibitory law as enforced has always resulted in injury to the material development of our town, we would respectfully petition our honorable senator to use his endeavors to secure its uniform enforcement throughout the state. If this is impossible, do not sacrifice our town on the altar of inordinate devotion to an IMPRACTICABLE PRINCIPLE.”

He rolled up the paper and looked over the procession. Seeing that the man holding the horse had a paper, and also the other two-masked men, he said, “What’s that paper you fellows have in your hand?” When they saw he was getting mad, they hastily folded up their paper and said nothing. Just then County Attorney Jennings, who had followed the pro-cession, said: “They contain petitions to the City Council for licenses to sell soda water and other drinks for $1,000 each, and they are in the same hand writing as the petition you hold in your hand.”

Then the Senator’s eyes blazed and he said so that it could have been heard all over the town: “You fellows want me to violate my constitutional obligations and help you to get a law framed under which you can open up saloons in Winfield.”

Thereupon he flung the paper at the petitioners. Some of it dropped in the chariot and some fell into the carriages of the city officials. Then up rose the man in the chariot and said vociferously: “This is an outrage! It isn’t fair! It isn’t just! No representative has a right to treat petitioners this way! It don’t mean saloons! It only expresses our devotion to the glorious cause of prohibition, so dear to our hearts!”

Some profane person in the procession or crowd, I couldn’t distinguish which, yelled out, “In a horn!” At this point a large number deserted the procession and all became confusion.

I awoke and it was broad daylight.

[HACKNEY.]

Winfield Courier, March 1, 1883.

HOW THEY LOOK AT IT.

The reply of Senator W. P. Hackney to the Winfield hoodlums hit the nail every time. Hackney is our style of man. He has no policy except that of the public interests and no duties other than his sworn obligations. He is our next candidate for governor and when elected to that high office a faithful discharge of his duties; recognition of constitutional obligations, and faithfulness to his constituency may be expected. Under him the constitution of this state will not be like an old coat to be laid aside or hung up to dry at the pleasure of the owner. Larned Chronoscope.

Winfield Courier, March 8, 1883.

M. L. Robinson has taken the advice of the COURIER, and on Monday purchased a bottle of Liver Regulator. We are in hopes that it will cure him. Our prescriptions hardly ever fail.

Winfield Courier, March 8, 1883.

SENATOR HACKNEY’S SPEECH

In the Senate, February 22nd, in Reply to Senator Buchan’s Charge That There Are

Eleven Saloons and Much Drunkenness in Cowley County.

A bill amendatory to the prohibitory law being the special order was then taken up and Senator Hackney took the floor and said:

MR. PRESIDENT: It was not my intention to say anything while the subject of prohibition was under discussion; but rather to listen to the many able men on the floor on both sides of this question, who I knew desired to be heard; and I would not now ask the indulgence of this body for a few moments only did I not deem it my duty to defend the grand people whom I have the honor to represent from the aspersions of the senator from Wyandotte. I am aware of the fact that in this assault upon the good name and fair fame of the people of Cowley, he is assisted by a former partner of mine, and by the present able partner of the county attorney of my county. And in reply to the statement of the latter, I will say that he is likewise the mayor of Winfield, and the deputy county attorney of my county. And when he says that there are eleven places in Winfield where intoxicating liquor is sold in violation of law, I answer, how does he know this? I further answer that I know of no prosecutions being commenced for a violation of that law since July 3, 1882, at which time my employment to assist the county attorney in liquor cases ceased. If there are eleven places in that city, and this mayor and deputy county attorney says there is, why has he not put a stop to it? Either he violates his oath of office in permitting such, or his statement is false. I would rather think the latter than the former. But I say to this senate, and the people of this state, that there is no place in Winfield or Cowley County today, and that there never has been since August, 1881, where liquors were kept and publicly sold in violation of the law.

Much complaint has been indulged in against the express offices, which ship in liquor to any and all persons ordering the same, but this class of business is beyond our reach, since any man out of the state may sell to any person in the state and ship it to him without violating the law. It is charged that drug stores violate the law in our town, and yet if they do, it is so slyly done that paid and expert detectives have been unable to detect the crime. From the very first in Cowley County, commencing with May, 1881, the law has been observed as well as any law in our statute books. With one exception no man ever has openly defied the law, and he lasted only a very few days, and his venture cost him nearly $1,000. But on the contrary, all of our saloons closed on that date, and the keepers left the country, or went into some other business.

The towns of Udall, Seeley, Dexter, Cambridge, Maple City, Burden, Torrance, and Arkansas City, in my county, all with populations ranging from 100 up to 1,500 people, never had a saloon or other places where liquors were sold in violation of law since the prohibitory law went into effect.

Senators upon this floor opposed now and always to the prohibitory law, tell us they speak from personal knowledge when they say that under prohibition more liquors are sold and more saloons exist now than under the old dram shop act. If this is true, I pity their condition indeed, and that of their constituents who submit to such a shame and disgrace. Under the old dram shop act, any, all, and everybody drank that wanted to; under that act every keeper of a saloon in Kansas openly and notoriously violated its provisions, and sold to drunkards and minors in violation of their bonds and of that law, and in spite of the pleadings of wives, fathers, and mothers, they trampled that law under foot and nobody molested them or made them afraid. Under the old dram shop act, in my town, our jail was occupied by drunken men, while our streets were thronged with men under the influence of liquor. In fact, drunkenness was so common with us as to cease to attract attention, while under prohibition, drunkenness is so uncommon that a man can attract universal attention. Under the old dram shop law saloons were licensed for the money that they paid the municipality and a harbor was thus formed for every cut-throat, horse thief, and dead beat in the land. A saloon is simply a harbor for the worst elements of society; it is a lounging place for the idle and the vicious everywhere; it furnishes a home for the gambler, the robber, and murderer; its surroundings are all vicious, all bad, and without one single virtue to recommend it in any way. A saloon is a monstrous crime against the people of a state, whether it be licensed or unlicensed, and whether a common doggery or a gilded palace of sin. And that community that tolerates either, simply sows the wind of human misery and will sooner or later reap crime and horror.

I know a man, and have seen him on this floor during this session—a constituent of mine—a man of fine attainments, a courtly gentleman, and when sober an ornament to society, who under the saloon system reduced himself to beggary by strong drink, and who has lead a sober life in my county since the saloons were closed. He came to this city a few days ago, and finding open saloons here, the old habit came back, temptation was too strong, and he fell, and has not drawn a sober breath since.

I can name a hundred cases in my county of men who under prohibition have ceased to drink, and are now respectable and sober men, who formerly were always found around the old saloon of my town. Go to them and ask them what they think of prohibition, as I have done, and they will tell you as they do me, to stand by the old ship, and never to go back to that damnable blot upon our civilization. Go to their wives, ask them what prohibition has done for them, and they will point to a happy home and reunited family.

Go ask the votaries and supporters of saloons, what saloons have done for them, and their answer will be impoverishment of my family, degradation and shame to myself. In the wake of the saloon system follows degradation and shame, and yet men of sense and respectability are found who defend the crime.

With the experience that nearly two years has brought me under prohibition, I could not, and would not under any circumstances go back to the saloon system. I have found from experience that the financial question involved in it, is a delusion and a snare, and if it were not, I would rather, with the experience I have gained by a fair and practical test of the question, vote for a pest house in my town than to vote for saloons.

And, in conclusion, permit me to say that as far as the people of my county are concerned, that they are a sober, law-abiding, and industrious people—a people that any senator on this floor might well be proud to serve, and of whom I am justly proud, and they are today as of yore, sound and solid for prohibition, and they do not want this law changed in any manner, whereby licensed saloons may once more disgrace our fair name and honorable fame as a prohibition county. We have tried the saloon system, we have tried prohibition, and I know from experience that a licensed saloon never made a sober or better man of anyone. I know from experience that prohibition has benefited hundreds in my county, and I know from experience that prohibition can be enforced in Cowley or any other county in this state, when the officers of the law love their duty and fear to commit perjury. When the officers of the law think more of their pledges to honest men than they fear the frowns of the venal and the vile, this law is enforced. It is a good, a grand, and a wholesome law, and receives the support of the best men in all counties, while time-serving and venal scribblers everywhere will continue to howl at and against it, the debased, and venal every-where despise it, but justice and right will prevail yet and make this law a success.

Questioned by Senator Williams: “I desire to ask the gentleman a question.”

Senator Hackney: “Very well.”

Senator Williams: “Is it not a fact that prior to your election to the senate, you were the paid attorney of all the saloons in your county? I demand a square answer.”

Senator Hackney: “I will answer the senator by saying that prior to my election, I was the paid attorney of all or nearly so of the saloon keepers of my county. But I am unlike the senator from Doniphan in this, that in this senate I represent the better portion of the people of my county, and not the saloon bummers as he does.”

[CORRESPONDENTS.]

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

Torrance Items.

Everybody is pleased with the way Hackney goes for the whiskeyites, and I don’t believe he is the man that will be spoiled by the flattering remarks that we see daily concerning his wise proceedings. I wish we had more such men as he and St. John. I don’t believe prohibition will lose anything by St. John not being elected, for now he can travel and lecture, which will strengthen many a weak place, besides the world will be better acquainted with the great and good man who leads the prohibition party in Kansas. Then Hackney will have double cause for being glad he took the stand he did with the whiskey ring.

CROCKETT.

[HACKNEY.]

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

THANKS OF THE PEOPLE.

The thanks of all good citizens are due Senator Hackney for the passage of his bill to preserve the purity of the judiciary. That is what the framers of the constitution intended. That is its spirit, its true intent and meaning, but it has been most shamefully spurned and spit upon. The framers of the constitution intended to say that no judge while holding the office should be a candidate for any political office; that judges should not become politi-cians. Senator Hackney’s bill effectually prevents the judiciary of this State from disgracing their positions by becoming ward politicians. A political judge ought to be looked upon with the same disgust that a political military officer is. Leavenworth Press.

[PROHIBITION.]

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

DRUNKENNESS.

The new law, just passed, to suppress drunkenness, reads as follows:

SECTION 1. If any person shall be drunk in any highway or street, or in any public place or building, or if any person shall be drunk in his own house, or any private building or place, disturbing his family or others, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty-five dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding thirty days.

SECTION 2. Prosecution under this act must be commenced within thirty days after the said misdemeanor is alleged to have been committed.

[HACKNEY.]

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

A RINGING SPEECH.

The ministers of the Methodist conference having on Monday, the last day of their session, a time in the afternoon in which they had no special business to transact, concluded that they wanted to hear a prohibition speech from Senator Hackney. They therefore got after him, and after a considerable urging, they got him out, and without preparation he appeared before them in the M. E. Church and gave them the most pronounced and ringing prohibition speech we ever heard. He did not mince matters, but spoke right out in meeting. He rehearsed the history of the saloon rule in our city and strongly contrasted the improved condition of things since prohibition took effect; stated that he started in for prohibition because he was pledged, not only to his constituents but by his oath of office, to support the constitution of his state, though he did not believe in prohibition as a practicable state policy; that his experience and observation and the history of the prohibition movement for the last two years had since fully convinced him that prohibition was the only right and true policy, and that it can and must be a complete success in this state. He is now a prohibitionist from conviction and principle and shall stand by the flag and hold the fort; that hereafter he intends to be not only a prohibitionist but a temperance man in the strictest sense of the term. He cautioned his hearers not to draw the line at temperance. Many men who totally abstain from the use of intoxicating drinks will vote for prohibition and do as much good with their votes as the preachers before him. The place to draw the line is at prohibition. Preaching and lecturing and singing and playing are all good; organization and funds are better, but it is the votes that count. The hardest of the battle is yet to be fought; the enemy are organized, have the funds for the campaign, and will vote together and poll every vote. The prohibitionists are doubtless in a good majority in this state and when thoroughly organized and polling a full vote in harmony they will win, and the time will then come when, as in Maine, no political party will dare to go before the people without a prohibition plank. The Senator called things by their right names. To him black was black and perjury was perjury by whatever prettier names they may be called. It was the duty of every citizen to aid in every way to enforce the law as it is.

No sketch would begin to do justice to this speech. It was received with the greatest enthusiasm. As but few had notice of it when it commenced, the audience was not large, but as it became noised about the streets, people came crowding in and filled the House.

[FRANK MANNY.]

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

SUGAR FACTORY.

MR. MILLINGTON—Dear Sir:

My brewery having been closed for two years, in compliance with the law, hoping for some change to be made by the legislature, but in their wisdom they saw fit to make none—and it having become the settled conviction that all beer used in this county must come through the new and undisputed channels, viz; the express offices and railroads; therefore, I would like to enquire of you the amount of sugar cane grown in this county, and the probable expense of turning my brewery into a syrup and sugar factory. I make this public request for the reason that your paper reaches many farmers, and they may be able to give me information as to the amount of cane raised in this section. Very respt.,

FRANK MANNY.

We cannot answer Mr. Manny’s question but hope this will call out some information on the subject. We are disposed to treat this matter seriously for we are satisfied that the works could be utilized in that way to make them pay handsomely on the investment and that our citizens would gladly give any assistance and encouragement possible. A sorghum sugar works is the most important material want of this city and would do the farmers as much good as any other factory. But if Mr. Manny is serious in this matter, he must expect that some will be skeptical on the subject of his intentions for a while until he has shown by his acts that he really means it.

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1883.

Col. Whiting furnishes a market for all of Frank Manny’s vegetables this year. He has a home-made fountain which keeps the vegetables fresh and wholesome.

[MANNY AND HIS SYRUP FACTORY.]

Winfield Courier, April 5, 1883.

MANNY AND HIS SYRUP FACTORY DEFENDED.

An Open Letter to the Editor of the “Courier.”

MR. EDITOR: Dear Sir: We read with pleasure, Mr. Manny’s letter of inquiry concern-ing the amount of cane grown in the county, and the probable expense of turning his brewery into a syrup and sugar factory. But, why, Mr. Editor, did you in your reply cast the wet blanket of suspicion upon his proposed enterprise? They who live near the brewery as well as many others feel certain that Frank means business. Do they not know that he has been testing the adaptability of his brewery to this syrup business? Why Mr. Editor so enthusiastic has he become of late over his project that night after night has he disturbed the quiet slum-ber of his neighbors by running the machinery of his brewery to ascertain its adaptability for manufacturing syrup! True, some of those “hypocritical fanatical prohibitionists” have hinted that he might be grinding malt and brewing beer or making more of his famous ginger! But you should not have allowed yourself to be misled by these hypocritical insinuations. For though they claim to have seen large piles of hops thrown out back of his brewery, and to have inhaled the odor of malt fermenting only a few weeks ago, yet no doubt, the odor was that of syrup scorching, while he was engaged in throwing out his hops hoping to make sugar.

There is not a doubt in the world that Frank has become a radical temperance man. Why Mr. Editor it is no secret that Frank was out to hear the Bishop preach during the M. E. Conference! It is also known that of late he has been calling together into his brewery some of the most intemperate men of our city, doubtless for the purpose of convincing them that it will be better for them that he change his brewery into a syrup and sugar factory. So powerful have been his arguments at times, that while some have given loud cheers of approval, others—terror stricken, have issued trembling from his door. Yea! Some even casting forth the contents of their stomachs—so terrible was their conviction!

And again Mr. Editor, had you so soon forgotten that only a few weeks ago Mr. Manny went before our legislature with the express purpose of securing more effective temperance legislation? And had you forgotten that M. L. Robinson, to whose heart prohibition is so dear, is Frank’s most intimate friend and counselor? Do you say in defense, that Mr. Manny’s beer wagon has been seen even in midday loaded with beer kegs, drawn from his brewery to certain parts of our city? We admit this to be a fact for we have seen the same, but you overlook the fact that the beer kegs were hauled directly past the office of your mayor who is so zealous for the enforcement of our laws. Would he have dared do this had he not first explained to the mayor that he was simply trying the capacity of his wagon for hauling syrup?

Again Mr. Editor, where have been your eyes that you have not seen Frank buttonholing weak-kneed temperance men and bracing them up to stand firm for temperance and the laws of our state?

Pardon me for saying so much for my feelings in behalf of injured innocence would not permit me to say less. I do most sincerely hope that the minds of our farmers have not been poisoned by your prejudicial expressions, and that they will proceed at once to plant vast fields of cane. Yours Truly, IRON PEN.

[GUN CLUB.]

Winfield Courier, April 19, 1883.

Gun Club Shoot.

The Winfield Gun Club had their weekly glass ball shoot Tuesday. After the shooting a business meeting was held at which Chas. C. Black was elected Captain and Ed. P. Greer Secretary. A communication from the Arkansas City Club was considered and an invitation extended to that club to participate in a match shoot on next Tuesday as the guests of the Winfield Club. The following is Tuesday’s score.

[DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR METHOD OF SCORING....SKIPPED!]

NAMES OF MEMBERS MENTIONED:

Manny, Harter, McLain, Whiting, Black, Lockwood, Greer, Clark.

Winfield Courier, April 26, 1883.

The Match Shooting.

By invitation, the Arkansas City Gun Club was present at the weekly meeting of the Winfield Club on Tuesday. The score on ten balls each was as follows.

ARKANSAS CITY CLUB: TOTAL 45. [PUTTING DOWN TOTALS ONLY.]

SHOOTERS: Parish, Young, Steadman, Speers, Shelden, Breene.

WINFIELD CLUB: TOTAL 47.

SHOOTERS: McLain, Vance, Clark, Whiting, Manny, Black.

Following this was a match with five balls each, which resulted as follows.

ARKANSAS CITY: TOTAL 18.

PLAYERS: Parish, Young, Steadman, Shelden, Breene.

WINFIELD: TOTAL 16.

PLAYERS: Vance, McLain, Clark, Black, Whiting.

Quite a crowd of spectators were present. Mr. Parish, of the Arkansas City Club, broke every ball in both matches, but two of them were broken just as they touched the ground and were ruled out by the referee, as were several balls broken in the same way by the Winfield Club. The Arkansas City boys were the guests of the Winfield Club during their stay in the city.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, April 26, 1883.

TRIAL DOCKET.

Cowley County District Court, May Term, A. D. 1883.

FIRST DAY, TUESDAY, MAY 1ST, 1883—CRIMINAL.

No.

229. State v H. L. Wells.

305. State v. D. V. Cole.

309. State v. C. G. Holland.

310. State v. Frank Manny.

315. State v. C. G. Thompson.

316. State v. D. V. Cole.

318. State v. John Headrick.

320. State v. Riley Constant, et al.

332. State v. Hamlin Barlow.

337. State v. W. H. Colgate.

338. State v. Monroe Felton.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.

Court opened Monday morning at 9 o’clock with Judge Torrance on the bench. County Attorney Jennings entered a nolle in all the doctor cases. The Manny case was put on for trial and a jury empaneled. Wm. Rose was granted a divorce from his wife.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.

Judge Gan’s testimony in the Manny case was direct and straight-forward, and reflects great credit upon him.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.

The Manny case has been on trial since Monday. Manny is charged in the indictment with maintaining a nuisance. Several witnesses have been examined and but few facts have been brought forth.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.

The Manny case has brought out a good many fellows who don’t know beer from sauerkraut, nor ginger ale from the essence of snake root.

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, May 16, 1883.

District Court is in session, Judge Torrance presiding.

Arkansas City Traveler, May 16, 1883.

The case of the State vs. Frank Manny for violation of the prohibitory liquor law was on trial the greater part of last week.

The jury disagreed, consequently the case will have to be tried over at this or some subsequent term.

Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.

The falling hail or chunks of ice last Saturday evening had a good chance at Frank Manny’s conservatory and smashed 1,500 lights of glass for him. The damage was very considerable.

Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.

District Court Notes.

State vs. Frank Manny, the jury, after being out two days, disagreed, and were dismissed.

[COMMENT: EDITORIAL CONVENTION.]

Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.

K. C. TIMES AS A LIAR.

Our attention has been called to an article in the Kansas City Times of the 17th, presum-ably written by some representative of that sheet who was not made known to us at the time of the editorial convention, and therefore was not feasted, toasted, and made much of by the Winfield people, and was unable to get his usual supply of rot whiskey, so he vented his gall by writing a batch of the most infernal lies about Winfield and her people, and the Times, the most mendacious paper in the west, of course published them.

Among the cowardly slanders of that article is the statement that Winfield “in 1880 was a boomer, was growing rapidly, and even the rival of Wichita. Today you can sit for hours on the porch of the Brettun house, and, scanning the entire length and breadth of Main street, see not a solitary team upon this highway.”

The express object of the article was to show that Winfield is a dead town, killed by prohibition. Frank Manny, and other leading opposers of prohibition, are among the most indignant on account of these falsehoods. They say that while they think our city would be better off without the prohibition laws, there never was a year in which business was any-thing near as good as it has been for the past year up to the present time, that it is nearly double what it was in the spring of 1880, that there is no time in business hours this spring when there are not considerable numbers of teams to be seen on Main street from the porch of the Brettun House, from a dozen up to hundreds; that there are more improvements going on, more new buildings projected, more sales of real estate at much higher prices, and that now, instead of 1880, we are enjoying “a boomer,” which is apparent to everyone who has spent a day or two in Winfield recently. The man who wrote that article would find himself in hot water if he met any of our anti-prohibitionists, they knowing that he was the author of the vile slander, to say nothing of the reception he would meet from prohibitionists.

We need not comment on his insinuation that the jurymen who recently tried the Frank Manny case were some of them perjurers, nor upon the gall and spleen he exhibited toward Senator Hackney, who is abundantly able to take care of himself, but would mention that while the writer says that Manny’s counsel in the trial was “mediocre,” he finally winds up by saying that “Judge Tipton, a Democrat of the old school, is here practicing law with eminent success”; a well deserved compliment, but the writer probably did not know that “mediocre” counsel and the “eminent” Judge Tipton were one and the same person. He also pays deserved compliments to Hon. J. Wade McDonald and Hon. Henry E. Asp. Since writing the above, we learn that the writer in the Times is O. H. Bently, a bald-pated jack-legged lawyer of Wichita.

Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.

Frank Manny had a great many gentlemen and lady visitors of the editorial crowd when in this city, and he treated them with his usual kindness, showing them through his conserva-tory and grounds and presenting them with bouquets of rare flowers. He says that those who were thirsty had to content themselves with such drink as he himself uses.

[WINFIELD GUN CLUB.]

Winfield Courier, July 5, 1883.

The weekly tournament of the Winfield Gun Club came off Thursday afternoon on the old fair grounds. The shooting was not so good as usual. The following is the score:

Jas. McLain 1-14; W. J. McLain, 1-12; J. N. Harter, 0-14; Frank Manny, 1-10; C. C. Black, 1-13; Ed. P. Greer, 1-10; C. E. Steuven, 1-10; Frank Lockwood, 1-9; T. H. Soward, 1-9.

[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]

Winfield Courier, September 27, 1883.

Trial Docket, October Term, 1883.

Cowley County District Court, to be held on and from October 21.

CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.

State v. Frank Manny.

State v. Jacob Case.

State v. Charles A. Cooper et al.

State v. John Askens.

State v. N. B. Lagle.

State v. Grant Dover et al.

[SKIPPED THE REST SHOWING COURT TO BE IN SESSION FOR SIX DAYS.

CIVIL DOCKET STARTED SECOND DAY...89 CASES LISTED.]

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Arkansas City Traveler, October 3, 1883.

Trial Docket for the October Term, 1883.

Cowley County District Court, to be held on and from October 2.

CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.

State vs. Frank Manny.

State vs. Jacob Case.

State vs. Charles A. Cooper et al.

State vs. John Askens.

State vs. N. B. Lagle.

State vs. Grant Dover et al.

Winfield Courier, October 4, 1883.

The District Court opened Tuesday morning last. The case of the State vs. Frank Manny was continued, and the State vs. Ed. B. Lagle, charged with stealing a horse in this county on July 12th from a Mr. Richards, was taken up and is still in progress. An order was issued Tuesday for the drawing of fifteen additional jurymen.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, October 11, 1883.

DISTRICT COURT.

Court has been in session for the two weeks past. Most of the time has been occupied with the criminal docket.

The following cases were disposed of.

State vs. Frank Manny, continued with $500 bail.

Winfield Courier, December 27, 1883.

DISTRICT COURT TRIAL DOCKET, JANUARY TERM, 1844.

CRIMINAL DOCKET.

FIRST DAY.

1. State of Kansas vs. Frank Manny.

2. State vs. Grant Dover.

3. State vs. John Kearns.

SKIPPED THE CIVIL DOCKET....82 CASES TO BE HEARD.

COURT TO BE HELD FOR SIX DAYS ACCORDING TO PAPER.

Winfield Courier, January 17, 1884.

The voters of Walnut Township are requested to meet at Frank Manny’s brewery at two o’clock p.m., on Saturday, January 26, 1884, for the purpose of putting in nomination a Citizen’s Township Ticket for the ensuing year. By order of Committee.

Winfield Courier, January 17, 1884.

Township Convention. There will be a Republican Convention of the Republican voters of Walnut Township at the stone house of Frank Manny, on Saturday, the 2nd day of February, at 2 o’clock p.m., for the purpose of putting in nomination candidates to fill the offices of said township. John Mentch, Chairman, Central Committee.

[REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.]

Winfield Courier, January 24, 1884.

The voters of Walnut Township are requested to meet at Frank Manny’s brewery at two o’clock p.m., on Saturday, Jan. 26, 1884, for the purpose of putting in nomination a Citizen’s Township Ticket for the ensuing year. By order of Committee.

There will be a Republican Convention of the Republican voters of Walnut Township at the stone house of Frank Manny, on Saturday, the 2nd day of February, at 2 o’clock, p.m., for the purpose of putting in nomination candidates to fill the offices of said township.

John Mentch, Chairman Central Committee.

Winfield Courier, March 6, 1884.

Frank Manny was arrested Monday on ten counts for violation of the prohibitory law ten times. This is rather hard on Frank after the defeat of Riggs for congress. Misfortunes never come singly.

[WINFIELD BOOMS.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1884.

HOW WE BOOM!

Winfield the Prettiest and Most Substantial City in the West,

And Still the Work of Improvement Goes On!

BRIEF MENTION OF WHAT OUR ENTERPRISING CITIZENS ARE DOING.

Three Hundred New Homes Going Up and More Contracted For.

The tract near Manny’s brewery is filling up rapidly with good houses. E. H. Gilbert has just finished four houses for rent in addition to a residence for himself, all of which were

rented before a nail was driven, one of them at $20 per month for a boarding house.

In the same neighborhood houses are being built by Jim Nichols, Tom Johnson, and W. J. Andrews, all neat and good.

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1884.

Notice. There will be a Republican primary election of the citizens of Walnut Township on Friday, April 18th, 1884, at 2 p.m., at the stone house of Frank Manny, for the purpose of electing delegates to the county convention to be held in Winfield on the 19th day of April. By order of committee.

[DISTRICT COURT TRIAL DOCKET.]

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1884.

TRIAL DOCKET.

Cowley County District Court, May Term, 1884, Commencing May 5th.

Am mentioning Manny only...

CRIMINAL DOCKET—1ST DAY.

State vs. Frank Manny.

[SKIPPED CIVIL DOCKETS...HELD COURT FOR SIX DAYS. MAW]

Winfield Courier, May 1, 1884.

Mr. Jos. Taylor plowed up last week on his place southeast of town, and has left with us, what Frank Manny calls a German gambling “chip.” It is a curious thing and has every appearance of having been once a circulating coin. The composition seems to be a mixture of copper and other metal. It is thoroughly Americanized. On one side is the goddess of liberty with the word “Liberty,” on her crown, and the words below “Comp S. Marke.” On the other side is the insignia of the United States and the words “In Unitate Fortitudo; Compos Spiel Marke.” The goddess is surrounded by fifteen stars. The chip, if such it is, has the appearance of having been in the ground for many years, though its design looks modernized.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884.

District court opened Tuesday morning. The criminal docket was called and Francis Marston plead guilty to grand larceny, in breaking into a Santa Fe car at Arkansas City some time ago and taking numerous articles of merchandise, and was sentenced to a year in the “pen.”

The Manny case was called for Wednesday afternoon and a special venire issued.

[FRANK MANNY CASE.]

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884.

The Manny Case.

The trial of Frank Manny last week in the District Court for the violation of the prohibitory law resulted in a verdict of guilty on six counts. The judgment of the court has not yet been announced.

[FRANK MANNY CASE.]

Winfield Courier, May 29, 1884.

The Manny Case.

The motion for a new trial in the Manny case was overruled by the court and he was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and the cost of suit, and to give a bond of one thousand dollars conditioned on his good behavior for two years. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and the defendant released on bond until its final hearing.

Winfield Courier, June 26, 1884.

Frank Manny and family have arranged to start in a few days for a three months’ visit in Germany.

Winfield Courier, July 17, 1884.

There will be a meeting of the Republicans of Walnut Township at Manny’s stone building on Thursday, July 12th, at 2 p.m. for the purpose off organizing a Blaine and Logan campaign club. S. E. BURGER, Ex-Com.

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1884.

Frank Manny and family returned last week from their visit in Germany. Frank looks as sleek, happy, and illustrious as ever. His laugh is especially vigorous and now resembles a mighty earthquake.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1884.

TRIAL DOCKET.

Cowley County District Court, First Tuesday, October 7th, 1884.

1ST DAY.—CRIMINAL DOCKET.

1. State vs. Frank Manny.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, October 23, 1884.

District Court.

Most of the time of the Court since opening Monday morning has been taken up, as usual, with preliminary matters and but few cases have been reached. A number of cases were continued to different dates and the following were disposed of.

State vs. Frank Manny: continued by agreement to next term, awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on Mr. Manny’s appeal.

Winfield Courier, December 18, 1884.

Dr. Edward Hollensbe, who was “jugged” last week for the supposed stealing of a horse of Frank Manny’s, had a preliminary trial Monday and was discharged, it appearing that he rode the horse off during temporary dementia. He seemed to realize the situation the next morning and took the horse back. He has been in the asylum several times.

Winfield Courier, December 25, 1884.

James Fahey was circulating a petition Tuesday, asking that Governor Glick pardon Frank Manny from liquor penalties hanging over him. Proper publication was made, in the usual way, several weeks ago, but there seems to have been a hitch in the proceedings, making a petition necessary.

First Day - Criminal Docket.

1. State v. Frank Manny.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 1, 1885.

A petition to Governor Glick for the pardon of Frank Manny has been extensively circulated and signed by over 300 citizens. Frank’s white house reception to the Governor doesn’t seem to have borne the desired fruit.

THE DISTRICT COURT.

The Grinding of the Mill of Justice.

Nearly All Criminal Cases To Date.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 15, 1885.

State vs. Frank Manny, violation of liquor law: on motion of County Attorney, and with leave of the Court, a nolle prosequi was entered and defendant discharged. Thus, after taking precedence on the criminal docket for several years, Frank “steps down and out,” and Court will have to fire its first shot at some other victim at the beginning of the next term unless Frank is again in the toils when he ought to be honored with his old time place. His experience has been mighty costly.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.

Frank Manny has been circulating a petition among our citizens this week asking a permit from the Probate Judge to manufacture and sell beer for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.

DOCTOR FRANK MANNY.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 9, 1885.

Mr. Frank Manny has applied for a permit to manufacture beer for medicinal purposes. If he gets it, his “medical dispensary” will open up soon. He can only sell to licensed druggists in unbroken packages. As long as Frank “totes fair,” no objection can be raised to his doing what he can lawfully with his property. What beer druggists need to retail had better be manufactured here than in Kansas City and shipped in. The only trouble about the matter is that the permit cannot be revoked as can a druggist’s permit. If issued, it is for five years, and while Frank may be today a sincere convert to the idea of strict observance of law, he might get his heels over the dash board if opportunity offered. However, Frank ought to have a chance for his life.

NOT A MEDICINE MAN.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

Mr. Manny says he does not want to run his brewery for medical purposes only, and protests against being classed as a whiskey mugwump. He says if he is anything, he is a beer mugwump. He desires to start his brewery for mechanical and scientific purposes also, and avers that beer is the best known liquid to soak leather in, preparatory to working it up into boots and shoes.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Manny’s case presents a phase which should command the attention of every fair minded man. He came to this place and erected his brewery with the sanction and encouragement of the then existing law. In this he invested the savings of a lifetime. By birth and education he was a brewer and naturally believed it to be a legitimate business. Then came the enactment of prohibition, and before he had time to realize anything from his investment, the wheels of his machinery were stopped. The property was not such as could be readily converted to other uses, so for years he has been compelled to stand idly by and see his property eaten up by interest while beer manufactured in Missouri was being shipped in and consumed to an extent which, if he could have furnished it, would have made his investment profitable. Naturally of a belligerent disposition, under such circumstances he became restless, and made the serious mistake of trying to evade “the tam law,” as he expressed it. It was a jump from the frying-pan into the fire: he was promptly convicted as he deserved, and in addition thereto placed himself before the public as a willful and apparently malicious violator of law. Hence he is looked on with suspicion and his assurances of good behavior received with a wide degree of allowance. Had he acted fair, square, and manly and respected the declared will of the majority as every true American citizen should respect it, however galling it might be, he could now come up with confidence, ask for such relief as might be granted under the law, and the public would cheerfully help him out. As it is, they do not feel like taking any chances and if Frank gets his medicinal, mechanical and scientific permit, it must be iron-bound; and if he oversteps so much as a hairs-breadth, the law will fasten upon him. THE COURIER would like to see him enjoy every opportunity which should legally fall to his lot, but its faith in his good intentions, based upon the past, is not overly strong. If druggists sell beer as medicine, or to soak shoe leather in, it had better be made here than in Kansas City, and Frank Manny has, in the eyes of equity and fairness, a better right to the profit arising therefrom, than the Missouri brewer. If the issuance of the permit can be hedged about with the proper “precautionary provisions,” so that the sales will be made only in unbroken packages to licensed druggists, with power to revoke the permit in case of conviction, it ought to be given.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 30, 1885.

Frank Manny’s application for a permit was not granted by Judge Gans, as the bond was not deemed sufficient. Frank takes the matter philosophically and says he will await Judge Foster’s decision in the Atchison cases before proceeding further.

Arkansas City Traveler, May 6, 1885.

From Our Exchanges.

Frank Manny having petitioned Probate Judge Gans, of this county, for permission to manufacture beer (for medicinal purposes), the citizens of Winfield have signed a counter petition setting forth that such an enterprise would be prejudicial to the best interest of the city and county.

Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, July 31, 1886. From Monday’s Daily.

Democratic Convention.

The Democrats held their county convention Saturday. Winfield, Arkansas City, Rich-land, Bolton, Creswell, Beaver, Spring Creek, Ninnescah, Liberty, Dexter, Pleasant Valley, and Vernon townships were represented by delegates. Capt. Gary called the assembly to order and Amos Walton was chosen temporary chairman and D. C. Young, of the Telegram, secretary. The committee on permanent organization recommended that the temporary organization be permanent, which was done. The following delegates were then elected.

STATE CONVENTION.

Delegates: John A. Eaton, J. B. Lynn, Chas. Schmidt, S. G. Gary, A. J. Thompson, J. D. Ward, C. C. Black, Amost Walton, Frank Manny, C. G. Thompson, T. McIntyre.

Alternates: D. V. Cole, D. C. Young, J. W. Connor, John R. Smith, J. M. Keck, J. Wade McDonald, W. P. Hardwick, E. P. Young, J. W. Ledlie, M. G. Hoover, A. D. Prescott.

Daily Calamity Howler, Winfield, Kansas, Wednesday, October 28, 1891.

Several “wine merchants” in this city were arrested this week for dealing in the ardent contrary to law. Among the number we see the names of W. D. Buchanan and Frank Manny.

NEED TO ADD FURTHER TO MANNY FILE STARTING WITH 1885. MAW