Manny Family

                                                            Frank Manny.
Frank Manny was born in Halle Saxe, Mersburg, Germany, on March 13, 1843. His family were beer brewers and he was brought up in that trade. Coming to America in 1862, he first lived at St. Louis, but emigrated to Kansas in 1870. He took up a claim in the south part of Rock township.
Many are the stories of the unselfish spirit of help­fulness to others that the early settlers tell. One of them may not be amiss. The incident occurred at the time of the horse stealing troubles, about Douglass and vicinity in 1870. Several “rustlers” were shot or hung by the enraged settlers, and all strangers were regarded with suspicion. Such were always de­tained until they could give an account of themselves. At this time, Alex Graham and his sister, now Mrs. Musgrove, and Mrs. W. G. Graham, returning from Emporia, were halted at Douglass and were in danger of being roughly handled, the excitement being great. Happening along came Frank Manny, who knew slightly Dr. and Mrs. Graham, and immediately identified and vouched for the party. The vigilantes then agreed to let the women proceed but deter-mined to hold Alex and his wagon a day or two. The horses were unharnessed, the women mounted thereon; and it being night, Frank Manny led them, walking all the way from Douglass to Dr. Graham’s place north of town, a good twenty miles. This he did as cheer­fully and unthoughtedly as many another man would “pass a good day.”
After ‘proving up’ on his claim, Manny came to Winfield for a year or two, then went to Wichita for a time. He married Mary Chamber­lain there in 1876.
Frank Manny and his wife returned to Winfield, which remained his home for the rest of his life. They had six chil­dren: Carrie, May, Frank, Carl, Lee, and Ruth.
Frank Manny built a stone brewery and ice house, at a cost of $13,000, after January 1, 1878. The 1888 city directo­ry shows his home at 804 East Third and his ice and coal yard on East Ninth street.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET: MARCH TERM.]
Winfield Courier, March 18, 1875.
                                                      District Court Docket.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the March term, A. D., 1875, of the District Court of Cowley County, to be holden on and from the 22nd day, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
                                               CIVIL DOCKET. FIFTH DAY.
No. 480. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Frank Manny.
[DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CASES.]
Winfield Courier, March 25, 1875.
Disposition of cases in the District Court up to Wednesday night.
State of Kansas Versus—
480. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Frank Manny, judgment for plaintiff.
Winfield Courier, September 2, 1875.

J. D. Hanlin will sow one hundred and sixty, Frank Manny, seventy, and J. B. Holmes, over two hundred acres of wheat this fall. These are only a few of the large fields that will be sown in Rock Township.
Winfield Courier, September 16, 1875.
                                               Cowley County District Court.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the September term of the District Court, to be holden on and from the 27th, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
                                               CIVIL DOCKET. SIXTH DAY.
Frank Akers vs. Frank Manny.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, March 15, 1876.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term A. D. 1876, of the District Court of Cowley, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
                                               CIVIL DOCKET. THIRD DAY.
Frank Akers vs. Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, October 25, 1877.
                                                         WICHITA ITEMS.
MARRIED. Frank Manny, who formerly lived in Rock Township, lately married a Miss Mary Chamberlain, and is running a brewery at Wichita.
                                                                Homicide.
Winfield Courier, June 6, 1878.
On last Saturday, June 1st, about four o’clock p.m., Jay Page, saloon keeper of this place, was shot and killed by L. J. Webb, attorney, and member of the House of Representatives of the State. Crowds of men immediately assembled around the scene of the transaction and great excitement prevailed. At the time of the shooting Mr. Page was standing against the counter of his saloon in conversation with Frank Manny, when Mr. Webb entered from the back room; and walking up to within about twelve feet of Mr. Page, drew a revolver from his pocket and fired—the ball entering Page’s left breast about five inches above the nipple. Page ran out the front door, blood gushing from his mouth and nostrils, crying that Webb had killed him. He ran along the sidewalk perhaps 100 feet and fell. He was taken up, bleeding from the mouth profusely. He expired immediately. No word was spoken in the saloon by either Webb or Page. After firing the shot Webb turned to the counter, where he handed his pistol to J. L. M. Hill, deputy sheriff, and went out in custody of Hill.
Coroner W. G. Graham caused to be summoned before him by J. H. Finch, deputy sheriff, a coroner’s jury, composed of W. Q. Mansfield, B. F. Baldwin, A. A. Jackson, H. Brotherton, A. E. Baird, and W. Gillelen. Frank Manny, Newton Ball, and Jesse Herndon, eye-witnesses to the transaction, were sworn and testified to the facts as above stated.
The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Jay Page came to his death by a shot from a pistol fired in the hands of L. J. Webb.

Jay Page came to this city from El Dorado in January last. He had formerly been in Topeka and cities further east. He was a young man of about thirty years of age, well formed, active, wiry, of good address and prepossessing appearance. He was a professional gambler, and is represented as having been not only skillful as a gambler but unprincipled, daring, and reckless, one of the kind who are quick and handy with the pistol and have plenty of nerve to use it.
When Page came to this place, he set himself to building a large stone two-story building with brick open front. The building was completed about six weeks ago, and is one of the large, substantial, and showy business houses of the city. It stands on the east side of Main Street, the fourth building north of Ninth Avenue. The lower story front room, about 25 by 50 feet, was occupied by Page as a billiard saloon, in which were a pool table and a counter and bar at the back end, where liquors were sold by the glass. Back of this was another room where card tables were kept. The upper story was divided into several rooms, some of which are supposed to have been occupied for gambling purposes. There have been rumors and surmises for several days past that green ones who have thought they were smart have been enticed into these rooms, where they lost their money; and now there are many dark hints being thrown out of drugged liquor, cold decks, pistols, roping in, etc., which in the present excitement it is impossible either to verify or refute. We are told that others have attempted to shoot Page but have been prevented by friends. Page leaves a wife, who was in a delicate situation, approaching confinement, and the effect of this blow may prove especially serious to her.
L. J. Webb is a young man about thirty years old, a bright lawyer, having a large practice and many friends. He had a few years ago habits of drinking and gambling, amounting to almost uncontrollable passion. Within the last three years he has made efforts to reform, joining the church and the temperance society, and has abstained from these vices so far that he regained the confidence of the people; and was in 1876 elected to the State Legislature, and has received of our citizens other marks of esteem and confidence. Since the Jay Page saloon as been opened, it seems that by some means he has been lured from his good resolutions and habits into drinking in this saloon and into gambling again, and has been taking opium to steady his nerves. It is said that he was in one of the rooms of that building all the night previous, where Page got away with his money by unfair dealing, and silenced him by a show of two pistols; that Webb left in a half demented condition, and under the influence of whiskey, drugs, and frenzy has perpetrated the homicide as above stated.
Webb has a wife and two children, to whom this tragedy will be the most terrible catastrophe.
The funeral of Page took place from the M. E. Church Sunday, June 2nd.
Webb was held over in jail to Monday for his preliminary examination. On Monday he was very low and weak; too ill to be moved, and his examination was postponed until his condition will permit of it. Dr. Davis, who is attending him, expresses the opinion that his mind was in a shattered condition.
[MORE ON THE KILLING AT WINFIELD: WEBB SHOOTING OF PAGE.]
Arkansas City Traveler, June 12, 1878.
                                                                Homicide.
                                                   [From the Winfield Courier.]

On last Saturday, June 1st, about four o’clock p.m., Jay Page, saloon keeper of this place, was shot and killed by L. J. Webb, attorney, and member of the House of Representatives of the State. Crowds of men immediately assembled around the scene of the transaction and great excitement prevailed. At the time of the shooting Mr. Page was standing against the counter of his saloon in conversation with Frank Manny, when Webb entered from the back room and walking up to within about twelve feet of Mr. Page, drew a revolver from his pocket and fired, the ball enter­ing Page’s left breast about five inches above the nipple.
Page ran out the front door, blood gushing from his mouth and nos­trils, crying that Webb had killed him. He ran along the side­walk perhaps 100 feet and fell. He was taken up, bleeding from the mouth profusely. He expired immediately. No word was spoken in the saloon by either Webb or Page. After firing the shot Webb turned to the counter, where he handed his pistol to J. L. M. Hill, deputy sheriff, and went out in custody of Hill.
Coroner W. G. Graham caused to be summoned before him by J. H. Finch, deputy sheriff, a coroner’s jury, composed of W. Q. Mansfield, B. F. Baldwin, A. A. Jackson, H. Brotherton, A. E. Baird, and W. Gillelen.
Frank Manny, Newton Ball, and Jesse Herndon, eye witnesses to the transaction, were sworn and testified to the facts as above stated.
The jury returned a verdict to the effect that Jay Page came to his death by a shot from a pistol fired in the hands of J. L. Webb.
Jay Page came to this city from El Dorado in January last. He had formerly been in Topeka and cities further east. He was a young man of about thirty years of age, well formed, active, wiry, of good address and prepossessing appearance. He was a professional gambler, and is represented as having been not only skillful as a gambler but unprincipled, daring and reckless, one of the kind who are quick and handy with the pistol and have plenty of nerve to use it.
When Page came to this place he set himself to building a large stone two-story building with brick open front. The building was completed about six weeks ago, and is one of the large, substantial, and showy business houses of the city. It stands on the east side of Main street, the fourth building north of Ninth Avenue. The lower story front room, about 25 by 50 feet, was occupied by Page as a billiard saloon, in which were a pool table and a counter and bar at the back end where liquors were sold by the glass. Back of this was another room where card tables were kept.
The upper story was divided into several rooms, some of which are supposed to have been occupied for gambling purposes. There have been rumors and surmises for several days past that green ones who thought they were smart have been enticed into these rooms, where they lost their money; and now there are many dark hints being thrown out of drugged liquors, cold decks, pistols, roping in, etc., which in the present excitement it is impossible either to verify or refute. We are told that others have attempted to shoot Page, but have been prevented by friends. Page leaves a wife, who is in a delicate situation, approaching confinement, and the effect of this blow may prove especially serious to her.
L. J. Webb is a young man about thirty years old, a bright lawyer, having a large practice and many friends. He had, a few years ago, habits of drinking and gambling amounting to almost an uncontrollable passion. Within the last three years he has made efforts to reform, joining the church and the temperance society, and has abstained from these vices so far that he regained the confidence of the people; was in 1876 elected to the State Legislature, and has received from our citizens other marks of esteem and confidence.

Since the Jay Page saloon has been opened, it seems that by some means he has been lured from his good resolutions and habits into drinking in this saloon and into gambling again, and has been taking opium to steady his nerves. It is said that he was in one of the rooms of that building all the night previous, where Page got away with his money by unfair dealing, and si­lenced him by a show of two pistols; that Webb left in a half demented condition; and under the influence of whiskey, drugs, and frenzy, has perpetrated the homicide as above stated.
Webb has a wife and two children, to whom this tragedy will be the most terrible catastrophe.
The funeral of Page took place from the M. E. church Sunday, June 2nd.
Webb was held over in jail to Monday for his preliminary examination. On Monday he was very low and weak; too ill to be moved, and his examination was postponed until his condition will permit of it. Dr. Davis, who is attending him, expresses the opinion that his mind was in a shattered condition.
Winfield Courier, February 28, 1878.
In spite of old Prog. Tice, groundhog and goosebons, that terrible freeze out did not come in February and Lacy mourns his occupation gone. He should have secured a few sheets of that ice as thick as a pane of glass in November. Frank Manny proposes to import an ice machine at a cost of about $3,000.
Winfield Courier, March 14, 1878.
                                                           SOW BARLEY.
Mr. Frank Manny will want more than 5,000 bushels of barley the coming year and will have to buy in other counties and ship it here unless the farmers of this county produce it. He expects to pay St. Louis prices for it delivered at Winfield. The prices at St. Louis have been ranging from 50 to 75 cents for spring barley. Fall barley is usually some higher. A good crop of spring barley, such as may be expected on our soil if properly put in and cared for, is from 50 to 60 bushels per acre. Forty bushels would be a poor crop. To make barley raising most profitable, clean seed only should be sown. Oats are the worst enemy of barley and if sown with it will run the barley out. Place your seed in a tub of water and the barley will sink while the oats will swim. Skim or pour off the oats and use them for horse feed and then you have clean barley for seed.
Do not soak your barley more than can be helped, but sow at once on new plowed ground broadcast and harrow in. Harvest early, before fully ripe. If allowed to stand until dead ripe, the heads will break off and waste. Stack at once, before rain, and it will sweat and properly cure in the stack. Do not thresh until fully cured; if you do, it will heat and spoil in the granary.
Now this industry is the most promising of all the spring crops, and farmers should see that the required amount is produced at home. If an excess of this demand should be raised, it will pay for shipment better than wheat and is much more profitable for feed than oats. In Mexico and California barley is fed altogether and the horses are kept in first class condition at moderate expense. The Mennonites in Harvey and adjoining counties are making much more money on the barley raised and hauled 20 to 50 miles to the railroad, than is being made in their vicinity on any other crop.

If you do not know where to get the seed, call on Brotherton & Silvers, Winfield. They have it which is clean and lively.
                                                   The Page-Webb Tragedy.
Winfield Courier, June 13, 1878.
Various statements in relation to this affair have appeared in the newspapers or been told about the country which have no foundation in fact; but have grown out of the surmises of excited men. Much interest and a desire to learn the facts are manifested.
At the preliminary examination of Webb, the courtroom was well filled, largely with men from the country, and we consider it due to our readers to give them the exact facts as far as possible, and endeavored to do so last week.
We will state that we were not much acquainted with Page and were well acquainted with Webb, feeling for him a personal friendship; but we do not intend that this fact shall color our statements.
Our statement last week that Webb had been taking opium to steady his nerves was doubtless an error. It is denied, and we find no one who knows that he ever took opium.
The statement of the correspondent of the Traveler that Page had won from Webb $100, which Webb had collected for his clients, is in error.
C. C. Black, Webb’s law partner, says that Webb could not possibly have had any money belonging to clients. The statement in some of the papers that Webb had threatened to kill or revenge upon Page seems to be without foundation. No evidence of threats or malice was offered, or was attempted to be offered, at the examination.
If there is any evidence that Page had played cold decks on Webb, drugged him, or drawn pistols on him, it was not produced at the examination. There are many other statements and rumors that cannot be taken as truth, at least not until the case is fully developed at the trial.
                                         THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
took place last week, June 5th and 6th. Capt. McDermott, for the state, evidently endeavored to do his whole duty in an honorable way. Judge Coldwell, E. S. Torrance, N. C. Coldwell, and Judge Webb, the prisoner’s father, were present in the interest of Webb. The hearing was before Justice Boyer in the courthouse. Four witnesses were examined on the part of the state. The following are all the material facts testified.
                                           JESSE HERNDON’S TESTIMONY.
I have been tending bar for Page lately. On the first day of June I was in Page’s saloon. Mr. Page was there. I saw L. J. Webb there; saw him shoot Page. Page was standing at the north end of the bar, front side, leaning against the bar talking to Frank Manny. Webb came into the room at the back door, walked to within about ten feet of Page, took his pistol out of his pocket, and pointed it towards Page. The pistol made a report and I saw the smoke. Page put up his hand to his left breast and said: “See where the son of a b___h has shot me.”
Page walked out of the front door. I did not see Webb do anything after that. He gave his pistol to Mr. Hill. I did not see Mr. Page anymore until about half an hour, when I saw him in the doctor’s office dead. What I have described transpired in Cowley County, Kansas, about 4 o’clock p.m., Saturday, June 1, 1878.
                                                   CROSS-EXAMINATION.

I have been in Page’s employ about two months. Mr. Page sold whiskey and wine and allowed gambling in his place of business. The room I have described was the retail room. The gambling was carried on in the back room on the same floor. There were other rooms for gambling upstairs, but they did not gamble there. There might have been one or two gambling games up there. The building was well constructed for gambling purposes.
I have known Webb nearly all the time I have been here; had seen him about the building before. He was there the Friday evening before; came after supper and remained all night and next day until the shooting took place. He did not leave the house to my knowledge until the shooting. Had he left I think I would have known it. He was in the back room where they were playing poker most of the time he was in the house. Page was engaged in the game. Page would frequently go from the gambling room to the bar room and help his customers to some of the good things he had there. Mr. Webb drank during the night and during the day. I think he took the last drink about thirty minutes before the shooting. During the time Webb was there he might have drunk more than thirty times. He was drinking all the time. I waited on them during the time he was there. The game broke up about daylight. Page did not play any after that. They all drank the same kind of liquor, not mixed liquor but whiskey; they call it bean whiskey. I took some peppermint to Webb once. I prepared all the liquor they drank that night except one round. Page gave them one round about midnight. I was most of the time in the gaming room. Webb was playing all the time until 4 o’clock. Page then quit the game because there was no more money in it. He had got it all. Webb continued drinking all day. I did not observe anything peculiar about Webb when he came out at the time of the shooting. Do not know whether Page had been in the gambling room that afternoon. If he was in there, I do not know it. I had passed a drink through a hole in the wall into the gambling room to Webb about twenty minutes before the shooting.
Frank Manny testified to the circumstances of the shooting substantially as did Herndon, and said he saw Webb in the gambling room about ten minutes before the shooting playing cards with two other men; said Webb when he came into the room looked as though he was mad; had his eyes wide open and looked toward Page with a hard stare. Webb leveled his pistol so long at Page before firing that witness thought it was a joke intended to scare somebody.
Newton Ball and H. A. Adams testified to the facts of the shooting substantially as Herndon had, and Dr. Mansfield testified to the surgical results. No witnesses were produced on behalf of the prisoner. His counsel evidently preferred not to disclose their line of defense.
The Justice ordered that Webb be committed to jail to await his trial at the September term of the district court. An application that he be admitted to bail was refused and the prisoner was returned to jail.
There is a wide difference of opinion in this community as to the merits or demerits of this case and some feeling is exhibited. We do not propose to state our opinions, but only to state the facts as they are developed. It is probable that much other evidence will be adduced at the trial, and until then we think all should avoid forming fixed opinions.
Winfield Courier, July 4, 1878.
Frank Manny drilled a well one hundred and twelve feet for water, but failed to find enough until the big rain came.
Winfield Courier, September 19, 1878.

                                               Trial of L. J. Webb at Wichita.
The case was called on Monday morning, September 9th, on the opening of the court. Defendant made application for a continuance because of the absence of Dr. Mendenhall, a material witness for the defense. The court held the showing sufficient, unless the State would admit the affidavit of defendant as the testimony of witness. The State consented and the case was set for trial next morning.
All day Tuesday was spent in getting a jury. The special venire was soon exhausted and balance was made up of tradesmen. It is considered a good jury, and both State and defendant are satisfied. Most of them are from the country.
Wednesday, Jas. McDermott opened the case on the part of the State. Frank Manny, Jessi Herndon, Adams, and others were examined as witnesses. There were no new features developed on the part of the State. The testimony was substantially as on the preliminary examination. The killing was proved and some evidence tending to show expressions of previous malice was introduced.
Col. James D. Snoddy, of counsel for the defense, cross-examined Frank Manny, and when he concluded, the witness left the stand in a rather shattered condition.
The evidence for the State was concluded Wednesday evening. During the night session, Judge Coldwell stated the case for the defense. The theory of the defense was insanity at the time of the shooting; that this insanity was caused by excessive excitement, loss of sleep, excessive drinking, and nux vomica, opium, and other poisonous drugs administered to him in his drinks. In his youth defendant had suffered a severe fracture of the skull, the walls being permanently pressed upon the brain, wounding and lacerating it; and in time of great excitement he is peculiarly liable to insanity, that the place of the killing was a dead-fall of the worst type.

One of the most important witnesses for the defense was Jessie Herndon, the principal witness for the State. As is known, he was Page’s barkeeper and knew all about how the business of the house was conducted. The defense had endeavored to draw out this testimony on cross-examination but the court would not permit it, and he was put on as a witness for the defense. He testified as to all the occurrences of the night previous to the killing and made many important additions to his testimony. He said that Page deliberately robbed Webb that night by means of cold decks and drugged whiskey; that Webb drank often that night, and Page had instructed witness to give Webb liquor from a particular bottle he called “all sorts,” which witness did; that twice during the night Page went into the bar-room and put some liquid from a small vial which he took from his pocket into a tumbler of whiskey and instructed witness to give it to Webb the next time he called for drink, which witness did; that this bottle of “all sorts” was a villainous compound of whiskey and drugs, which Page kept for the express purpose of giving to men with whom he was gaming; that shortly before the conclusion of the game, and after Webb had drunk the whiskey prepared by Page, Page went into the bar-room and stacked a deck of cards, and instructed witness the next time drinks were called for to bring this pack under the water or server, and while Webb was engaged in drinking to leave them under the server on the table, which witness did, and then Page dealt from this cold deck, giving Webb a full hand and himself a better hand, on which he won all Webb’s money, and this concluded the game. Witness testified to some expressions of anger made by Webb to Page upon the conclusion of the game, saying he was robbed, but to no expressions of malice or threats of revenge. All the parties to the game remained an hour or more after its conclusion, Webb drinking frequently; then all left except Webb, who remained alone with witness. Webb never left the saloon from that time to the time of the shooting. Witness testified as to Webb’s condition and appearance during the day; said he looked very wild and had a jerking movement about his head, neck, and shoulders, was convulsive, and breathed hard. Witness testified that after the preliminary examination he went with By Terrill and Frank Manny to the saloon to make an examination for drugs. They washed out several empty bottles and one bottle that contained something that Page had used to put in liquor; what it was he did not know. When they emptied it out and washed the bottle, he told Terrill and Manny that it was not right. He testified that certain vials and small bottles shown him looked like those which Page had used to fix up liquors with.
This witness suffered considerably in the hands of W. E. Stanley, attorney for State, on cross-examination. His attention was called to statements he had made before Justice Boyer at the preliminary examination in direct contradiction to his present statements. These contra-dictions witness explained by saying he had been advised by certain friends of Page that if he told anything he knew about these transactions in the saloon they would let Webb go and send witness up; that from those threats and the general excitement he was afraid to tell all he knew about that saloon.
Further testimony for the defense from Burt Covert, G. L. Walker, James Fahey, P. Hill, A. H. Green, R. F. Baldwin, Ed. Bedilion, and Dr. W. R. Davis corroborated Herndon in relation to the wild and insane appearance, the convulsive twitching movements of the throat, head, and shoulders of the defendant immediately before and subsequent to the shooting; also showed the finding of some small bottles and vials in the counter used by Page in his saloon; that these vials were taken from the counter sometime after the shooting and preserved with their contents and are the same that are now exhibited in court; and the testimony of Drs. Davis, Rothrock, and Furley showed that these vials contained opium, nux vomica, and India hemp, and that these compounded and administered would produce the symptoms described in the defendant and would produce insanity.
The jury than examined the indentation which is apparent on defendant’s head. From inspection it appeared that a considerable portion of the skull had been formerly removed, and that the left side of the skull is pressed in upon the brain.
The medical gentlemen testified that such is a frequent cause of insanity, and that any person thus afflicted was extremely liable to mental derangement or insanity in any unusual excitement, or the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, or of such drugs as had been found in the vials.
Thursday, Friday, and a part of Saturday were occupied with the testimony for the defense. Rebutting testimony was then offered by both State and defense but was of little importance. The testimony in many important points was conflicting.
On Saturday evening the evidence was all in and the court adjourned to Monday morning, when the court will give his charge to the jury and the arguments of counsel will be heard.

On Monday morning, the 16th, the Judge gave his charge to the jury, and was followed by W. E. Stanley in the opening argument for the State. Stanley scored the defendant and many of the witnesses for the defense fearfully and evidently with great effect. His plea was long and pronounced to have been brilliant to a high degree. He was followed by Judge Coldwell for the defense. This is the latest news we get as we go to press.
Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.
The Winfield gun club have received their glass balls, and tomorrow afternoon at two o’clock they will have a shoot northeast of town on Manny’s farm.
Winfield Courier, November 7, 1878.
Last Friday the Gun Club had their first glass ball shooting match with the following score. This is the first shoot and the score is not very good, but we hope that the next score will give a better showing. Dick Gates carried off the leather medal.
Cannot put scores down: too complicated. Club participants were E. Hersinger (not in town), James Vance, Bert Crapster, F. C. Nommsen, Frank Manny, B. M. Terrell, Chas. Steuven, Dick Gates.
Winfield Courier, November 21, 1878.
Scores given for gun club meeting called the “glass ball shooting” last Friday. Participants listed: Bert Crapster, F. C. Nommsen, Frank Manny, B. M. Terrell. “And now the shining leather medal hangs upon the heaving bosom of Bert Crapster.”
Winfield Courier, December 5, 1878.
The score of the shooting match last Thursday is as follows: Dick Gates, 10; Frank Manny, 9; James Vance, 9; Charles Steuven, 9; B. M. Terrill, 5; Bert. Crapster, 2; S. Suss, 3; Ed. Clisbee, 2; F. Nommsen, 1.
[LIST OF NEW BUILDINGS ERECTED SINCE 1/1/1878.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 2, 1879.
The following is a list of new buildings erected in the city of Winfield since January 1, 1878, with the name of owner and cost of building.
Frank Manny, brewery and ice house, stone: $13,000.
Arkansas City Traveler, February 26, 1879.
                                      James Kelly Shot by Manny at Winfield.
James Kelly, ex-Post Master at Winfield, was shot on Satur­day last by Manny, of that town. Kelly is said to have received two loads of bird shot in his side, and his condition is very serious. We have heard two or three different reports of the affair, and all point to whiskey as playing a full hand at the game.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 12, 1879.
An action has been brought in the District Court by James Kelly vs. Frank Manny, for civil damages, arising from assault with that shot gun.
Arkansas City Traveler, June 4, 1879.
Judgment was rendered in the criminal cases at the late term of the District Court as follows:
STATE VS. FRANK MANNY: fined $350.
STATE VS. FRANCIS SMALL: sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary at hard labor.
STATE VS. DAVID CREEK: 4 years in the penitentiary.
STATE VS. HENRY MOUNT: fined $100.
                   [Shooting of James Kelly by Frank Manny, Brewery Proprietor.]

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1879.
                                                         Nearly a Tragedy.
On last Saturday morning, James Kelly, ex-postmaster and once editor of the COURIER, was shot by Frank Manny, proprietor of the brewery northeast of town. The particulars are, as near as we can learn, as follows.
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.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, May 1, 1879.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the May, A. D. 1879, term of the District Court of Cowley County, beginning on the first Monday in May, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
                                          FIRST DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET.

State vs. Frank Manny.
                                              SIXTH DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
Burrough & Spach vs. Frank Manny.
                                             EIGHTH DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, May 8, 1879.
We are under many obligations to Mr. Frank Manny for a nice chunk of ice last week.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 8, 1879.
The court commenced its session on Monday. His Honor W. P. Campbell presiding. Present: E. S. Bedilion, clerk; C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Torrance, prosecuting attorney, and a full corps of local attorneys.
All civil cases were continued over to next week.
                                                               TUESDAY.
State against Frank Manny, shooting of James Kelly. Trial commenced and the testimony of James Kelly was in progress when the court adjourned for the day.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 15, 1879.
FRANK MANNY...
The case of the State vs. Manny occupied the time of the court up to last Friday evening, when the jury brought in a verdict of assault and battery. The punishment is a fine not exceeding $500 and imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Defendant’s counsel gave notice of a motion for a new trial.
[JUDGMENT RENDERED IN CRIMINAL CASES: DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 22, 1879.
Judgment was rendered in the criminal cases at the late term of the District Court, as follows.
State vs. Frank Manny: fined $350.
Winfield Courier, June 5, 1879.
Frank Manny has a new ice and beer wagon.
[DISTRICT COURT CALENDAR - AUGUST TERM.]
Winfield Courier, August 21, 1879.
                                          (Commencing Monday, Aug. 25, 1879.)
Burrough & Spache   C. H. Payson
     vs.
Frank Manny Hackney & McDonald
James Kelly      F. S. Jennings
     vs.
Frank Manny    Hackney & McDonald
[COURT NOTES.]
Winfield Courier, August 28, 1879.
The District Court convened Monday afternoon, of last week, and the following cases were disposed of upon call of the Docket.

James Kelly vs. Frank Manny. Defendant made application for change of venue.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Arkansas City Traveler, December 3, 1879.
                                                      District Court Docket.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the December term, A. D. 1879, of the District Court of Cowley county, and have been placed on the Trial Docket, in the follow­ing order.
                                           CIVIL DOCKET, SECOND DAY.
James Kelly vs Frank Manny.
[COURT DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, January 8, 1880.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the adjourned December, 1879 term of the district court, beginning on Monday, the 15th day of January, 1880.
AMONG THE CIVIL DOCKETS....
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, June 24, 1880.
Mr. Frank Manny has fixed up near his brewery one of the finest parks in southwestern Kansas. He has laid it off into walks and drives, with beautiful beds of flowers, rustic arbors, swings, and other attractive features. His intention is to make it a place of resort where all classes can repair with their families and enjoy a pleasant afternoon, and so far he seems to be succeeding admirably. Mr. Manny allows no disreputable characters to enter the grounds, and upon our visit there we saw nothing that could be objected to by the most fastidious. The use of the grounds is offered free to the schools or Sunday schools for picnic purposes, the only proviso being that the children be accompanied by their teachers, who are expected to keep the flowers, arbors, etc., from being injured.
[EMANCIPATION CELEBRATION.]
Winfield Courier, August 5, 1880.
On the first day of August 1834 the slaves in all the British colonies were emancipated, and last Monday the colored people of the Arkansas Valley celebrated the event in Winfield.
There were about 300 colored people present, mainly from Winfield, Wichita, Wellington, and Arkansas City.
Williamson Thomas was the president of the day; L. C. Scott was grand marshal; Wm. Brown and Carter, assistant marshals, and John Turner, Carter, and Brown the committee on arrangements.
A procession, led by the colored band of martial music, was formed at the Santa Fe depot and marched to the ground, Frank Manny’s garden and park, where the Rev. Weir made an introductory address, and Rev. Daily made the opening prayer.
Judge Coldwell was the orator of the day and made an elo­quent and appropriate address, which was listened to attentively and broadly applauded by his appreciative hearers. After the address a banquet was served, at which Judge Coldwell and the county commissioners were honored guests.

In the evening the religious part of the company held an entertainment at the courthouse and the others held a ball at Manning’s Opera House. Both parties were conducted pleasantly and were highly enjoyed.
There are about 125 colored people in Winfield of whom about 50 are exodusters. The latter have plenty of work, are doing well, and feel that they have escaped untold barbarities. The colored people here are generally good citizens and industrious.
Winfield Courier, August 19, 1880.
Dan Miller has opened a stone blacksmith shop near Manny’s brewery.
[WINFIELD CEMETERY.]
Winfield Courier, August 19, 1880.
Persons wishing to purchase lots in this cemetery or wishing to have graves dug, will please call on James H. Land, near Manny’s brewery. W. G. GRAHAM, Secretary.
[COURT DOCKET: AUGUST TERM, 1880.]
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, September 1, 1880. Front Page.
                                                        COURT DOCKET.
                           Cowley County District Court calendar, August term, 1880.
                                                         CIVIL DOCKET.
                                                           SECOND DAY.
Winfield Courier, November 25, 1880.
Frank Manny talks of converting his brewery into a flouring mill. Good for Frank.
[COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, November 25, 1880.
Trial docket for December term, commencing on the first Monday (6th day) of December, A. D. 1880:
SECOND DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
[COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, December 1, 1880.
                                          COWLEY CO. DISTRICT COURT.
Trial docket for December term, commencing on the first Monday (6th day) of December, A. D., 1880.
                                            SECOND DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, December 9, 1880.
Last week Frank Manny put up one hundred tons of ice, five and a half inches thick.
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, December 30, 1880.
Frank Manny always keeps us on the jump to know what he is going to do next. He is now engaged in making hot-houses and he already has three thousand exotics and is propagating thousands more. Hereafter it will not be necessary for us to go abroad for house plants.
                                                          CIVIL DOCKET.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmonds.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark, et al.

W. H. H. Marris vs. T. W. Gant, et al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, January 20, 1881.
The polls for Walnut township will be in the second house west of the old Maris residence near Manny’s brewery. J. C. ROBERTS, Trustee.
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, January 20, 1881.
Frank Manny is happy. His large ice houses are filled with beautiful ice, much of which is a foot thick. How is that for the “Italy of America?”
Winfield Courier, January 27, 1881.
Frank Manny has gone to Germany on business and pleasure.
Winfield Courier, January 27, 1881.
Mr. Frank Manny left Monday for Hamburg, Germany. He will be absent about sixty days.
[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]
Winfield Courier, February 3, 1881.
Frank Manny left last Monday for a visit to the Fatherland, and expects to be absent about sixty days. He has just finished putting up two thousand tons of ice, and thinks he has earned a rest.
Frank Manny returned from Germany last week. He looks as if the smell of salt water was healthy.
Winfield Courier, April 21, 1881.
Frank Manny was indicted by the U. S. Grand Jury last week for neglecting to post his internal revenue license. He was fined fifty dollars and costs, amounting in all to one hundred and eighty dollars. Such mistakes are liable any time to occur, and it does not seem fair to fine a man for a failure to post his license in a conspicuous place after he has paid the government for it.
[TRIAL DOCKET DISTRICT COURT MAY TERM, 1881.]
Winfield Courier, April 28, 1881.
CRIMINAL DOCKET: STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS 59 CASES...
Theo Miller, R. Ehret, Jos. Whiteman, Frank Manny, John Himelspach, James Fahey, Frank Merrill, Stephen O’Lane, Theo R. Timme, Thos. H. Benning, E. A. Henthorn, Geo. Miller, B. M. Terrill, Joe R. Smith, A. W. Patterson, Harry Bahntge, David Harter, A. H. Green, Barney Shrivers, Thos. Wright, Sid S. Major, W. A. Gibbs, S. S. Moore, Geo. Corwin, Ed G. Cole, A. Hatfield, ____ Squires, John Custer, Wayne Bitting, Ed Appling, Ed Howell, S. R. Walcott, W. L. Mullen, H. Jochems, James Allen, L. J. Webb, Ed Collins, Sol Frazier, R. Ehret, Major F. Moss, Geo. Haywood, E. B. Weitzel, Allison Toops, Willie Fogg, Alex May.
CIVIL DOCKET: 120 CASES.

Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmons; C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day; Mercy M. Funk vs. Cinthia Clark et al; W. W. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et al; James Kelly vs. Frank Manny; J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al; M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold; S. D. Pryor et al vs. M. L. Read et al; John Lowry vs. C S & Ft S R R Co; Seymour Tyrant vs. David Hitchcock; Same vs. C. L. Harter et al; John Pittinger vs. Samuel B. Atkinson et al; B. B. Vandeventer vs. S K & W R R Co.; John S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al; John B. Lynn vs. S K & W R R Co.; M. L. Read vs. Francis M. Small et al; M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene et al; Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gillelen; J. W. Lane vs. T. S. Green; John Stuart vs. B. Corrygan; Edward Geist vs. same; John Templeton vs. same; J. E. Hayner & Co. vs. H. L. Cowles; Wm. D. Rason vs. John Brooks; Emma J. Keffer vs. George Brown et al; Albert P. Johnson vs S K & W R R Co.; Oscar F. Weeks vs. same; Martha C. Dyer vs. Andrew R. Wilson; Daniel Bell vs. County Commissioners; E. M. Bird vs. same; J. R. Harmon vs. same; C. C. Hollister vs. same; Sarilda Paxton vs. Clayton A. Paxton; Miles L. Smith vs. W. P. Olney et al; Henry S. Ireton vs. Charles A. Bliss; D. M. Osburn vs. Godfrey Mast et al; Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman; John Moffit vs. John Smiley et al; Same vs. Thomas Wright et al; Joseph W. Pugsley vs A. T. Shenneman; Mary Lawson vs. Peter Lawson; Wyland J. Keffer vs. T. B. Norman; McCord, Nave & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman; City of Winfield vs. Joseph Poor; Malin Fowler & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles; John Himelspach vs. same; Ida Arnold vs. Elizabeth Dressel et al; John B. Fleming vs. C. C. Krow; Winfield Bank vs. T. M. Linscott; Moore Brothers vs. J. H. McBerth [? McBeth would seem more like it ?]; J. L. Byers vs.
W. B. Seward et al; M. L. Read vs. H. Tisdale et al; Basheba Goodell vs. Charles Goodell; W. H. Fritch vs. T. M. Maddox; Robert Allison vs. James Finch; Frank C. Wood vs. Geo. H. McIntire; Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell townships; Thomas J. Jackson vs. James P. Williams et al; James P. Walch vs. Knisley & Bowles; S. L. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus et al; Field, Leiter & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman; M. L. Read vs. John L. Rusbridge; Brotherton and Silver vs. Elmer V. Stevens; H. P. Farrar vs. E. R. C. Gray; John B. Tallman vs. John H. Willis et al; James L. Huey vs. Agnes Wilson; George B. Green vs. James Harden; Libby & Moody vs. James Harden; Almost Wiley vs. James Harden; R. L. McDonald & Co. vs. Agnes Wilson; Tennent Walker and Company vs. Agnes Wilson; Evan Richards et al vs. S. B. Littell; Aultman & Taylor Co. vs. George Hafer; Winfield Bank vs. H. F. Burnett; Rosanna E. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; W. M. Wyeth & Co. vs. P. J. Sydall; S. P. Kinsley vs. A. T. Shenneman; Frank S. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; T. E. Lewis vs. E. A. Wilson; In the matter of W. M. Null for mill dam; Adolphus H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al; Daniel Sheels vs. G. E. Bradt et al; M. Brettun vs. Alvin E. McDeed; Rufus B. Wait vs. E. E. Lewis; M. L. Read vs. Samuel C. Fitzgerald; F. E. Lewis vs. Charles Jones; S. B. Tucker vs. O. F. Boyle et al; Nancy A. Snodgrass vs. John Snodgrass; Jennie P. Coleman vs. Geo. W. Coleman; L. Lowenstein vs. B. Saddler; Mary Lewes vs. Lewis Sherbino; J. E. Hoyt vs. A. T. Shenneman; Comstock, Castle & Co. vs. E. S. Rose; Elijah Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells; Rilda P. Hughes vs. Charles Marshall; Robert E. Wallace vs. Martin West; March C. Anderson vs. Wm. D. Ander­son; Margaret J. Manning vs. Edwin C. Manning; Almira I. Clay vs. Wm. Clay; Hattie B. Fuller vs. J. S. Chick; Jostin [?] Hollister vs. John L. Morton et al; John W. Sargeant vs. Susan Sargeant; John Lowry vs. F. A. Osborn; Aultman Taylor & Co. vs. Reuben Corman et al; Wm. C. Hatchings vs. Thomas Copeland; Mason & Tulle vs. Malinda Clay et al; Frank J. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; N. C. Myers vs. Elijah Murphey et al; Quincy A. Glass vs. School District 123; John Rhodes vs. John T. Quarrels; James E. Searl vs. Overa Y. Searl; Simmons and Ott vs. J. B. Williams et al; Thos. James vs. James Boyd.
[TRIAL DOCKET, DISTRICT COURT - MAY TERM, 1881.]

Arkansas City Traveler, May 4, 1881. Front Page.
                      TRIAL DOCKET DISTRICT COURT, MAY TERM, 1881.
                                                    CRIMINAL DOCKET.
STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS—
Theo Miller. R. Ehret. Jos. Whiteman. Frank Manny. John Himselspach. James Fahey. Frank Merrill. Stephen O’Lane. Theo R. Timme. Thos. H. Benning. E. H. Henthorn. Geo. Miller. B. M. Terrill. Jno. R. Smith. A. W. Patterson. Harry Bahntge. David Harter. A. H. Green. Barney Shrivers. Thos. Wright. Sid S. Major. W. A. Gibbs. S. S. Moore. Geo. Corwin. Ed H. Cole. A. Hatfield.         Squires. John Custer. Wayne Bitting. Ed Appling. Ed Rowell. S. R. Walcott. W. L. Mullin. H. Jochems. James Allen. L. J. Webb. Ed Collins. Sol. Frazier. R. Ehret. Major F. Moss. Geo. Haywood. E. B. Weitzel. Allison Toops. Willie Fogg. Alex May.
[FRANK MANNY’S LETTER: PROHIBITION IN KANSAS.]
Winfield Courier, May 5, 1881.
                                                      Prohibition in Kansas.
                                How It Has Killed Winfield and Cowley County!
      Statements of Businessmen of Winfield and Leading Citizens of Cowley County,
                                          Kansas, in Relation to the Situation.
We have received many letters from Iowa and other states containing a letter written by Frank Manny, of this city, clipped from one newspaper or another, with the inquiry if the statements therein contained are true. We answered one of these briefly last week, but subsequently we learn that the Manny letter is being published widely in other states, not only as an argument against prohibitory liquor laws, but against emigrating to Kansas, and particularly against this city and county. It is known that Winfield and Cowley County are the
                                              BANNER CITY AND COUNTY
for prohibition. The vote on the prohibitory amendment last November was in Winfield 443 for, and 121 against. Majority for: 322. In Cowley County the vote stood, 3,248 for, and 870 against. Majority for, 2,373. No other city or county in the state gave anything like such majorities for, and most cities as large or larger than Winfield gave majorities against. If prohibition is disastrous to a community, it is fit that this city and county be the heaviest sufferers. If it is a good thing, this city and county should come in for a goodly share of the benefits. This city and county are only eleven years old. In that time they have risen from nothing to a population of 21,539 for the county, and 2,850 for the city, according to the U. S. census of 1880, and the population of the city today is not less than 3,300. Of these eleven years, nine of them have been years of magnificent crops of all kinds, and two of them have been years of partial failure. The first year of short crops was 1874, and the following spring showed a decrease of population and a stagnation of business. The other year of short crops was 1880, which was even worse than 1874, and the result on the population and business this spring will appear in the statements which follow. Either in consequence of, or in spite of the fact that intoxicating liquors have always been sold here in any abundance, we have arisen from nothing to one of the best and wealthiest counties in the west in eleven years. Was it whiskey, or was it our wonderfully fertile soil, fine climate, and attrac­tive surround­ings?

Here is the famous Manny letter.
                                          “WINFIELD, KANS., April 1st, 1881.
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.
                                                        FRANK MANNY.”
Below are statements of businessmen and leading citizens of this city and county.
                                                         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.
                                           E. W. HOVEY & CO., DRUGGIST.
My business has improved every month I have been here and this last month is the best I have had. There is not much sickness. The doctors say it is distressingly healthy, so our prescription business is not as large as it would otherwise be. I do not know as the prohibitory law has had any effect on our trade as yet, but after today (April 30) I shall not sell liquor for medical or other purpose and shall not take out a permit at least for the present. This will not reduce my sales perceptibly for very little liquor enters into prescriptions.
                                               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.
                                                   HENRY BROWN & SON,

Druggists and Booksellers: Don’t think our trade is quite so good as it was a year ago, but it is very good, much better than we expected. Our trade would be much better ordinarily, but there is very little call for medicines and almost no sickness in the county. Physicians are all complaining of little business. We are going to take out a license, and sell for legitimate purposes in a legitimate way, and the prohibitory law will not affect this part of our trade in any way. We like the law and are going to support it. We have commenced to build a new house for our business. It will be 23 x 77, two stories and basement, of Winfield stone with brick front, iron columns, and plate glass, and will cost $3,500.
                                         JOHN FLEMING, M. D., DRUGGIST.
My trade is about 25 percent better than it was a year ago, on account of a wider acquaintance. The health of the country is better than it was a year ago, scarcely any ill health. I do not think prohibition effects my trade in any way.
                                              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.
                                                         D. V. COLE, M. D.
I think the State Convention of Physicians will pass a resolution to refuse to take the oath required, and to prescribe alcoholic liquors. I have heretofore rarely prescribed such and then mostly at the request of patients. I have heretofore rarely prescribed such and then mostly at the request of patients. There is no necessity of prescribing such, except in very rare cases such as snake bite. In an emergency I would not hesitate to use the necessary means to save life. I do not think there is anything in the law to prevent me.
                                                  T. M. McGUIRE, GROCER.
My business is double what it was a year ago. Since the saloons were closed, my business has been about double what it was before. There are as many grocery stocks in town as there were a year ago. I attribute the increase in my trade to having a better stock, a better location, and to not having a noisy saloon beside me to drive away my best customers, and to the fact some men spend more money for groceries than formerly. For the last two months my Saturday cash receipts for goods have run from $143 to $233 per day. I have been out in the surrounding country and find an unusual amount of farm work and improvements going on.
                                          HARTER BROTHERS, DRUGGISTS.
Our trade is good but not so good as a year ago. There are reasons why it should be less. Poor crops and less sickness, are principal. It is too early to tell what the effect of the prohibitory law is or will be. We shall not take a druggist’s license at present, but await a decision of the supreme court to define the meaning of the law, and in the meantime shall not sell liquor for medical or any other purpose.
                                                    GEO. EMERSON, M. D.

There is and has been very little sickness in this county all winter and spring, much less than usual. I do not attribute this to the operation of the prohibitory law. The State Medical Society meets on May 10th. Until then I do not intend to take the oath or to prescribe liquors. I do not intend to let anyone die on account of it, but shall administer it myself when neces­sary. I think the law needs to be authoritatively defined by the courts and then our profession will fall in to help carry out the law. We hold off a little now as a matter of prudence.
                                                     HARTER & HORNING,
Tunnel Water Mills: We are making 20,000 pounds of flour per day, which is about the same amount we were making a year ago. There are six flouring mills running in the county while only five were running a year ago. There is plenty of wheat in the county to keep the mills running until the next crop. There is much less wheat being shipped from this county than a year ago. I suppose about 1,200 bushels has been shipped within the last thirty days.
I don’t think prohibition effects this business in any way as yet. I do not think the wheat crop of this county the past year was over 300,000 bushels. An average crop would have been over 1,000,000 bushels. The present promise is a very good crop for this year. The acreage is greater than last year and we may reasonably expect a crop of 1,200,000 bushels. Prices are about the same as a year ago and have been very steady for a year. We have formerly shipped much of our flour to Colorado and New Mexico.
                                                              J. S. MANN,
Dealer in clothing, gents’ furnishing goods, hats, caps, boots, and shoes: My trade is less than it was a year ago, but I have demand for a better class of goods than was wanted a year ago. I do not think that prohibition affects my trade in any way.
                                                         C. H. ROBINSON,
Loan agent: My business is better than a year ago, because of more confidence in the future of this county and in the value of securities. Men are building fine buildings and making substan­tial improvements who would not have done so had the saloons remained.
                                                    J. B. EVANS, FARMER.
I live in Vernon township, Cowley County. There is more building going on than there was a year ago. Some of them are very fine improvements. There has much more farm work been done and better done than last year. The prospects for peaches, apples, and all kinds of fruits were never better. Corn is up and looking well. Oats look fine, but wheat is not as promising as it has been some years. Gardens are in excellent promise. There are several newcomers in this township and a demand for farms to rent much greater than the supply.
                                                      CURNS & MANSER,

Real estate, loan, and insurance agents: Our business generally is about the same as a year ago. The value of real estate in both city and county, has appreciated during the last year. Farms are held firmer and at higher prices than a year ago. There is more being done in the way of building and other im­provements than ever before. Farmers are doing their work better and putting in their crops in better shape. The cultivated acreage is much greater than a year ago. An immense amount of prairie breaking is being done. More tree planting is being done than ever before. We travel over the county frequently and have had plenty of opportunities to observe. A considerable number of new settlers have already located in the county this spring and we have correspondence which indicates that a great many more will soon be here. Those who have settled this spring are well fixed. Many of them say they came because of our prohibition laws.
We have a list of three hundred families who are coming from various states to settle in this state and probably in this vicinity. Notwithstanding we had last year the boom of two railroads just completed to this city, the demand for real estate is as great now as it was then. Some large and fine buildings will be erected in this city this year. One business house in our charge by McDougall will cost $8,000. Money is plenty here for loaning and can be had at as low rates as in any of the western states.
                                                        ELI YOUNGHEIM,
Dealer in clothing, gents furnishing goods, hats, caps, and trunks. My business is better than a year ago. I do not think that prohibition has affected it. I expect an increase of business right along and have full confidence in the future of this county. I think there are more goods in my line in this city than there was a year ago.
                                                           W. E. TANSEY,
Police Judge: I came into this office on February 1st, just three months ago today. The saloons had closed the last week in January and the prohibition laws had just gone into practical effect here. During these three months, I have had before me two cases for drunkenness which occurred in my first week: one case for being found in a bawdy house, and 11 cases for quarreling, fighting, swearing, or carrying concealed weapons—14 cases in all. The records of this office show that in the same three months of last year there were 76 police cases, of which 29 were for drunkenness, 21 for being found in a bawdy house, and 16 for quarreling and fighting.
                                                             R. B. WAITE,
Real estate agent: Though there is quite a number of vacant rooms in the city, there are more occupied buildings now than there were a year ago. There were a great many new buildings erected during the past year.
                                                        H. L. WELLS, M. D.
There is no sickness here which belongs to the country, nothing but chronic diseases which have been brought here with the patients. Chronic cases of catarrh and kindred diseases yield readily to treatment here by the aid of atmospheric influ­ences. This is not a malarial country. I shall take the physi­cians oath and abide by and support the prohibitory law. Rents are high here, too high. Six months rent at the rate I pay for the office I occupy would build one as good.
                                                               W. A. LEE,

Dealer in Agricultural implements and machinery. My trade is better than it was a year ago. I am selling more wagons, more cultivators, and more of almost every other kind of farm machin­ery. I am giving less credit than a year ago not that there are fewer men whom I would credit, for it is a fact that there are many more farmers whom I would credit than there were a year ago. Then there were many farmers who were in town frequently, drink­ing and idling around, seeming to care little for their farm work, who are now rarely seen in town; and when they do come, attend to their purchases and leave. And when I see them at home, they are busily putting in their seed and improving their farms. I could name a large number of farmers who have reformed wonderfully in this particular. I travel over our county fre­quently, and observe that an unusual amount of improvements are going on this spring.
                                                       GEO. BLACK, M. D.
My practice is not as good as it was last year because nobody is sick. It has really been healthy for the last two years. This is a healthy country. There is no malaria here and nothing to make it unhealthy. Cannot tell as yet what effect prohibition has or will have on the general health, but of course it will be favorable. I think I shall follow the advice of the Medical Association, which meets in Wichita soon, with regard to qualifying for and prescribing liquors for medicine.
                                                             S. C. SMITH,
City engineer. I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the situation of the sheep interest in this county. A year ago there were about 40,000 sheep in this county. Recently I got actual enumeration of 69,500 sheep in the county, and there were proba­bly many that I did not get. The sheep are about two thirds graded merinos and one third native Colorado and Missouri. A large majority of the bucks are nearly full blood merinos called thorough breds. I think the wool crop of this county this spring will amount to 350,000 pounds and will net $70,000.
                                                       REV. J. E. PLATTER,
Pastor of the first Presbyterian church. My congregations average larger than they did a year ago. I note the presence of many whom I did not see in church a year ago. The attendance at the sabbath school is much greater than it was a year ago. The contributions of members of the congregation to pay the pastor and expenses are much larger and more readily paid and the finances of the church are in much better condition.
                                                             A. H. GREEN,
Real estate agent. I am selling more farms than I did a year ago. Almost all who buy pay entirely cash down. There are some vacant houses in this city, perhaps twenty five, but there have been built a great many more than that within a year. There are many more occupied houses in this city than there were a year ago.
                                                       D. A. MILLINGTON,
Postmaster: The Winfield post office is a post office of the second class. The revenues of this office for the last three months ending April 30th were $1,851. For the corresponding months of last year they were $1,830.
                                                             A. D. SPEED,
Liveryman. Our business is starting out very good this spring. During the hard, cold winter it was rather dull. A year ago our business was booming on account of the recent completion of two railroads to this place. Now it is not so good, but it is excellent nevertheless. Could not say that the prohibitory law has any effect on our business. There are four livery stocks in this city the same as a year ago.
                                                              M. L. READ,

President of the board of trustees of the M. E. Church. The congregations assembled for services at this church average a considerable larger than a year ago. The seats are generally pretty well filled. The seating capacity of the church is about six hundred. I observe that many persons attend church who did not attend a year ago. This church is a fine, large building, 40 x 80 feet of Cowley County building stone, and the audience room is the whole size with a gallery. The financial condition of the church is excellent and the subscriptions for expenses are better and larger than they were a year ago. Our sabbath school is in a flourishing condition. The average attendance is 160, which is greater than a year ago.
                                                            F. M. FRIEND,
Dealer in millinery stock, sewing machines, and organs. The business of this house is good, but not so good as a year ago. One man and three ladies are employed in this house and are kept very busy. The season is about a month later than last year and trade has hardly commenced. It is likely to exceed that of last spring in the outcome. There are four millinery stocks in town same as last year. The trade in sewing machines and organs is better than I had reason to expect. Do not see as the prohibito­ry law has affected our trade as yet, but think the effect will be to make better trade.
                                                          PHILO WINTER,
Farmer of Tisdale township. There is as much building going on in the county as ever, more trees are being planted than ever before, more corn is put in than ever before, more breaking going on, and more farm work generally being done. There is not an empty house to be had and the population is increasing.
                                                  HENDRICKS & WILSON,
General hardware, stoves, and tinware. Out trade is fully as good as it was a year ago. We expected a large falling off in trade on account of short crops last year. We account for the contin­ued good trade by the arrival of men with money who are settling in the county. We get some of the money which was formerly spent for liquor.
                                                             SAM. WATT,
Farmer. There is more corn put in than ever before and the stand is excellent. Many of the farmers have been through their fields with the cultivator for the first time.
                                   COL. SCOTT OF LOCKPORT, NEW YORK.
While on my way to Winfield, I heard it frequently reported that this city was going down, and my surprise when I arrived here was great to find the large amount of building and other improvements going on, and the lively trade that is being trans­acted. Winfield is the liveliest and most flourishing city of the size which I have seen in my travels this spring.
                                                       JOHNSTON & HILL,
Dealers in furniture. Our trade is better than it was a year ago, though we have more competition in the business than we had then. The tendency of the short crops of last summer to decrease the trade is fully made up by the tendency of those then in the habit of spending their money for liquor to now spend it for furniture and ornaments for their homes. We observe that there are fewer men on the streets and sidewalks nowadays than there were a year ago, and fewer men calling to examine and price our goods; but then men would lounge around awhile and leave without buying, while now they almost always buy something. We notice that many women who come in here have a more cheerful, happy look than they had a year ago. Our trade in coffins has fallen off.
                                             BAILEY & RINKER, GROCERS.
Our trade is more than double what it was a year ago. We are carrying a larger and better stock than we did then. There are twelve grocery stores in town, the same number there were a year ago.
                                                  BROTHERTON & SILVER,

Seed store and agricultural implements. The seed trade is one-third better than it was a year ago. We have been paying less attention to the implement business than last year, and our trade is less. We are satisfied that prohibition is helping our trade considerably. Many are planting seeds who used to be loafing around, drinking more or less.
                                                     REV. JAMES CAIRNS,
Pastor of the first Baptist church. My congregation average larger than it did a year ago, and our finances are in better condition. We have the foundation laid for a new church, which will cost $10,000, which we expect to erect in due time.
                                                             T. R. BRYAN,
Trustee of the Christian church. The congregations at our church are larger than a year ago, and the church is in better financial condition. Our Sabbath school is better attended.
                                                      REV. DR. CANFIELD,
Pastor of the Protestant Episcopal church. This church had its beginning within a year. It is in a flourishing condition. We have no suitable place of worship yet, and our congregations are not as large as we would expect with a suitable room. They average about fifty. We think we shall be able to build a new church during this year.
                                                           BADEN & CO.,
General merchandise. Our trade is about the same as it was a year ago. Then we had a great amount of orders from men engaged in building the railroads, which we have not got now. Our trade in butter, eggs, chickens, etc., is immense. This city is shipping more of these kinds of produce than any other city in Kansas, and we will undertake to show it from our books if anyone doubts it. Most of our shipments are to Colorado and New Mexico. This is the best county in the West.
                                               J. L. M. HILL, RESTAURANT.
Think the closing of the saloons has reduced my oyster business very largely. When a squad of men have got pretty full of liquor, it makes them feel so rich that they will buy oysters by the quantity. My cigar and fruit business is better and increasing. Men who drink liquor do not buy fruit as a general rule.
                                                          SCOVILL & CO.,
Clothing and gents furnishing goods. Our trade is larger than it was a year ago. The present outlook for trade is much better than it was last year at this time. I do not see that prohibi­tion has affected my business in any way. It cannot be that it has hurt this town in the least, and the country will soon be richer and more populous for it.
                                                            W. B. PIXLEY,
General merchandise. I am a newcomer here just commencing to build up a business. My trade is better than I expected it would be. I think prohibition is affecting the trade, that many children are wearing shoes who never had any before and get more bread and meat to eat.
                                                       SMITH BROTHERS,

Dealers in boots and shoes. Our impression is that our trade is just about as large as it was a year ago. Then the farmers had wheat and corn kept over, which they were selling and had plenty of money; now their last year’s crop is exhausted. It is true that there are buildings for rent here now while a year ago it was difficult to get one, but rents are still about one-third higher than they ought to be. We have no means of knowing what effect prohibition has had upon our trade thus far. There are two more stocks of shoes and boots in town than there were a year ago.
                                                           W. J. HODGES,
Stock dealer. The acreage of corn planted this spring in this county is twenty to twenty-five percent greater than it was last year, and what is particularly noticeable, the work is better done. It has all come up and is looking splendidly. If nothing unusual happens to prevent, the crop will be one-third greater than ever before. My shipments of stock for the market are about the same as they were a year ago. In the last three months I have shipped: Fat hogs, 65 cars, 4,259 head, $48,813.33; fat sheep, 3,413 head, $15,944; fat cattle, 100 head, $4,500. Total amount paid, $69,307.33.
                                                     PROF. M. T. TRIMBLE,
Principal of the public schools of Winfield. The attendance and interest in the schools of this city are much greater than they were a year ago. For the last three months the enrollment of pupils was 402 and the average daily attendance was 386. The corresponding three months of last year the enrollment was 236 and average daily attendance 226.
                                                 SNYDER & SPOTSWOOD,
Produce dealers. Our business is much larger than it was a year ago. In the last two months we have shipped to Colorado and New Mexico 32,070 dozens of eggs and 6,761 pounds of butter, besides large quantities of dressed poultry. We are handling a large amount of fresh garden vegetables, and besides what we are able to buy we cultivate 12 acres in garden sauce. We raise a large amount of poultry and keep the best breeds.
                                                         M. HAHN & CO.,
Dealers in dry goods, carpets, clothing, and gents furnishing goods. Our trade is about the same it was a year ago. We had reason to expect it would be much less on account of the short crops. We do not know how to account for the continued good trade. Cannot tell what effect the prohibition law has upon it.
                                                     HENRY GOLDSMITH,
Dealer in books and stationary and news dealer. My business is generally better than it was last year, but I had reason from the short crops to expect a large decrease of trade. I sell more books, and more from my soda fountain. It is certainly too soon to make an estimate of the effect of prohibition upon my trade. Can tell better a year from now.
                                                                  I. LEVI,
Dealer in clothing and gents furnishing goods. My trade is fully as good as it was a year ago though I had reason to expect a considerable falling off on account of the short crops. It is too early to estimate the effect of prohibition upon my trade. If we have plenty of rains this year as we now expect, the trade will be much better than it is now.
                                                            S. H. MYTON,

Dealer in general hardware, stoves, tinware, agricultural imple­ments, and machinery. My trade during this month of April has not been materially different in the aggregate from that of April of last year. In planters, cultivators, and other tools for corn raising, my trade is better than ever before. Last year the season was about a month earlier than this year and now our heaviest trade has hardly commenced. It now appears that the aggregate of the spring trade will be better than it was last year. I apprehended a very much smaller cash trade than a year ago, because of the short crops last year. I did not expect there was anywhere near as much money in the country as there seems to be. I cannot tell yet whether the prohibitory law has the effect to increase my trade. Last year when it became evident that the wheat crop would be short, the sales began to fall off and profits to grow less, which continued until
recently.
                                                  J. A. EARNEST, GROCER.
My trade is better than it was a year ago. There are 12 grocery stocks in town, the same as a year ago. Had the crops been average crops last year, my trade would have been much larger. A year ago many merchants wanted to get out of business. There does not appear to be any such sentiment now. I do not know what effect the prohibition law has upon trade. I do not see as many men loafing around as formerly, and I presume much of the money formerly spent for liquor now goes for groceries and other goods.
                                             WALLIS & WALLIS, GROCERS.
Our business is hardly as good as it was a year ago. There are more groceries in town than a year ago, and the aggregate trade of the place in groceries is as large as then. We have just commenced a new building for our business to be of our Winfield stone, brick front, iron columns, 14 foot ceiling, 25 x 105 ft. with basement. We need more and better room for our business.
                                          HUDSON BROTHERS, JEWELERS.
We are doing twice the amount of business we did a year ago, probably because we are carrying twice as many goods and are better known. Do not know as the short crops of last year has any effect on our trade. Have not noticed any particular effect of the prohibitory laws on our trade.
                                             HORNING, ROBINSON & CO.,
Hardware. Business larger than a year ago. It would doubtless be much larger had we full crops last year, but the prohibition law affects us favorably. Men who used to spend their money for liquor now buy a great many things in our line which they have heretofore done without. Our stock is much heavier than it was a year ago, and we expect a much larger trade than we have ever had before.
                                                    HON. C. R. MITCHELL,
Member of the State legislature. I live in Arkansas City, Cowley County, Kansas. The prohibition laws went into effect at that place on the first of February, three months ago. No one has left on account of it except the saloon keepers, but a great many have settled there, the population and business is increasing rapidly, and the city is on a boom.
                                                    RAY, JOHNSON & CO.,
Carpenters and builders. We have more work on hand in the way of building than we had last year notwithstanding the short crops of last summer. We think the amount of building going on is greater for the operation of the prohibitory law. Our workmen get along without liquor, are sober, and industrious; and most of them are settled in homes with their families. We think that within six months, we shall have large accessions of newcomers with capital who are coming here because of the prohibitory law, and will have many more good building contracts to offer. The tramp carpenters are steering clear of this place and that makes work for the resident carpenters steady and valuable.

                                             AXTELL & CO., RESTAURANT.
Business in this line is about as good as it was a year ago, less country and more town trade. Don’t think prohibition will make our business any less.
                                                        PRYOR & KINNE,
Real estate and loan agents. The demand for farms and the prices of real estate are about the same in this county as they were a year ago. There are many newcomers who appear to be men of standing and of more wealth than those who came last year. They do not hesitate to buy on account of prohibition, but express gratification on account of it. We believe prohibition is going to be a great benefit to our county by inducing the better class of people to settle here.
                                                 E. M. REYNOLDS & BRO.,
Well drillers. The demand for our work is about the same as it was a year ago. We drill wells in all parts of the county and travel all over the county frequently. I observe that the amount of building and other improvements going on in the county now is full as much as a year ago. I see full as many and I think more newcomers settling in this county than there were a year ago.
Those settling this spring are a good class of citizens having money, intelligence, and energy. Many of them have told us that they came to this state because they wanted to raise their children where they would not be contaminated by the influences of the liquor traffic. The promise for large crops the coming year is excellent and the farmers are in the best of spirits.
                                                         LYNN & LOOSE,
General merchandise. Our business is about the same as it was last year. We had reason to apprehend it would be less on account of the bad season last year. Cannot explain why business has kept up so well. Produce is bringing a better price, though there is much less of it, a considerable stock is being handled, and a considerable amount of eggs, butter, etc., is being sold. We do not observe that the prohibitory law has affected our business in any way. There are less people on the streets than a year ago, but more and better buyers in proportion to the crowd than last year. It is rather wonderful how our trade keeps up under the circumstances. As partly accounting for it, we have more goods, a larger, better, and more convenient room, and better facilities for showing goods. Our sale room is 25 x 140, well filled with goods, with basement same size for storage, a large carpet room in the second story, and an elevator from the basement to the second story. French plate glass front and lighted with gas throughout.
                                                        WINFIELD BANK.

The business deposits in the bank are much better and larger in volume than ever before. We do not think the increase of the volume of business of the city is much over that of a year ago, but we attribute a considerable portion of the increase of our deposits to newcomers who have settled in this vicinity bringing with them large sums of money to invest. Many of these have told us that they would not have settled in Kansas but for the prohi­bition laws. This law is favorable to banks because it raises the value of names as securities. A man who is good for $1,000 now, is likely to be better a year from now, while formerly many such would be likely to be depreciated as sureties by liquor. All Kansas banks will stand better with their eastern correspon­dents because their home securities will be more valuable.
                                                           READ’S BANK.
Our deposit business is better than it ever was before, which indicates that the general business of the city is larger than it was last year. The business of Winfield is in a healthier condition than it has ever been. The natural effect of the failure of crops last year would have been to reduce the present volume of business more than twenty-five percent, but the prohibitory laws or something else has neutralized this effect. We are anticipating a business boom as soon as the harvest is over.
                                                    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.
                                                 A. T. SPOTSWOOD & CO.,
Grocers. Our business is nearly double what it was a year ago. We have a magnificent stock, much better than it was a year ago. If prohibition has had any effect on our business, it has been to increase it.
                                                      REV. L. F. LAVERTY,
Pastor of the M. E. church, Arkansas City, Cowley County, Kansas. A year ago there were many vacant buildings in Arkansas City; many buildings have been erected since, but there are no vacant buildings there today. Our city marshal has now apparently nothing to do and it is probable that the office will be dis­pensed with. Prohibition went into practical operation there three months ago, and I think it will be strictly enforced.
                                                              C. A. BLISS,
of Bliss & Wood, Winfield City Mills. This mill is a large, substantial structure on the Walnut river at Winfield, built of stone. The fall of water is eight feet, and there is plenty of power except at rare seasons, when we use steam power, having a 100 horsepower engine. We can make 24,000 pounds of flour a day, doing more than we did a year ago. I think there is plenty of wheat in the county to keep the mills going until another crop is brought in. Prices are about the same as a year ago. We ship most of our flour to Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. We can ship three carloads a week besides supply our home demand, which is considerably larger than it was last year. I do not know of anyone leaving here on account of the prohibitory law, except two saloon men. I know of many who are arriving and settling here, who express themselves gratified with prohibition. These are generally substantial men of means. One whom I recently met, William P. Yates, brings great wealth and appears a very intelli­gent gentleman. I think we are much better off for prohibition.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.
The following cases have been disposed of by the court up to date.
Kelly vs. Manny, change of venue.
[MANNY’S LETTER BRINGS RESPONSE FROM “KANSAS METHODIST.”]
Winfield Courier, May 19, 1881.

The “antiquated” brewer of Winfield is “on his ear,” and is trying to revenge himself on the good people of the city of Winfield and Cowley County, because they will not buy his beer and barley. . . .
It was to be expected that Cowley County would be the order of attack, and falsification (for lying is the stock in trade of rum and the devil, those barbaric twins). This county was the banner county of the state on prohibition last November. It cast 3,243 votes for and 870 against the amendment and of course stands the impersonation of the greatest sinner against King Alcohol. But the Winfield COURIER of May 5th, comes to our office with statements of the leading businessmen of Winfield, and leading citizens of Cowley County, concerning the status of business there, which show that they are not only holding their own, but progressing finely, notwithstanding Mr. Manny’s asser­tions. We counted in the COURIER of May 5th, sixty-six distinct statements in considerable detail of so many business houses, professions, trades, and occupations, as to their own business prosperity, thirty-nine of whom state that their business is better than it was a year ago—a period with which Mr. Manny makes his comparison. Several of these report business much better, some of them double. Eight state that their business is about the same, five report theirs not as good. Three of these last are druggists, one a physician, and the fifth the police judge. Two of the druggists and the physician attribute the falling off in their trade to the excellent health of the city and county, and one druggist charges his diminished receipts to the prohibitory law, and says he will “go west” where he can do business with some “degree of freedom.”—sell, we suppose, whiskey under the guise of medicine, a la Hostetter Bitters, Ginger Bitters, etc. . . . .
But we must close this article already too long. Cowley is a great county and Winfield is a thriving city, and they are inhabited by a grand people. One reason for introducing so much local history in a paper of general circulation, is that Cowley is a representative county in point of natural resources and material wealth—but especially representative as a temperance county, and every slander uttered against her because of her grand temperance record, is aimed at the great principle of prohibition, and to put her right on the record is simply to place temperance in its true light. Kansas Methodist.
Below is a letter that needs to be studied in regard to Manny letter...related! MAW
[LETTER TO COURIER EDITOR FROM QUINCY A. GLASS, DRUGGIST.]
Winfield Courier, May 19, 1881.
                                             WINFIELD, KAS., May 16, 1881.
To the Editor of the Courier:
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 editorial of May 12, contains a direct attack upon the course adopted by myself and the great majority of druggists in Kansas in regard to the new prohibitory laws. I should be false to myself as a man, and false to the reputation of the honorable business I follow, if I allowed this last article with its gross misstatements to pass unanswered.

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.
                                     Very respectfully yours, QUINCY A. GLASS.
Mr. Glass is evidently a little excited about something. He grows warm over our last week’s article on “Making the Law Odious,” and rushes recklessly into print. Had he taken time to cool off before writing his article, what he has to say would have been entitled to greater consideration. We give place to his communication not because he has the right under any rule of newspaper courtesy to attack us in the columns of our own jour­nal, but because he desires to be heard; and we are willing to gratify that desire so far as we can consistently.
When Mr. Glass asserts that this paper has taken “every opportunity of assaulting and vilifying the drug trade,” he states what he and everyone of our readers knows to be false. To oppose legitimate drug trade would be puerile. It is true we have condemned the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, whether by druggists or others. We have convictions in regard to this matter that we have spoken freely and which we expect to continue to express. In our doing so, we have not supposed that we were interfering in any manner with the trade of any honorable druggist. We have always supposed that Mr. Glass was doing a straight and legitimate business and are scarcely able to account for his sensitiveness in regard to this matter.
We have nothing to take back of what we said concerning the men who control the druggists’ association of the State. The statement of Mr. Glass in regard to R. J. Brown, of Leavenworth, and the other officers of the association, is not conclusive evidence. We read the papers published at the homes of some of these men, and we have not forgotten the items they contained in regard to “long rows of well-filled jugs” sold for a day or two previous to the first of the present month.

Mr. Glass pretends to know of someone who since its taking effect has violated some provision of the prohibition law. If so, why does he not like a good citizen walk up to the County Attorney’s office and give him the facts? That is the manly course for him to pursue. Others may hesitate to act until they know what they can prove. If he knows that the law has been violated, let him state the facts. He will soon discover that the friends of temperance have the “sand” to see the law enforced.
[“OBSERVER” ATTACKS TELEGRAM ARTICLE RE TEMPERANCE LAW.]
Winfield Courier, June 16, 1881.
                                                  WINFIELD, June 12, 1881.
Some days ago the Telegram published a remarkable article on the new temperance law, and one is forced to the conclusion that the gushing temperance advocate of last fall’s campaign is about to go back on his record and join the red nosed, bleary eyed. And some visaged rabble who are just now holding up their hands in holy honor at that law which forbids the sale of intoxicants for sacramental purposes; is it possible that a chance to rent the basement of his new hotel at a big price for a Beer and Billiard saloon is working on his judgment?
And that reminds me that it is one of the stereotyped assertions now almost universally indulged in by men opposed to temperance legislation “that if a vote was again taken on the constitutional amendment, it would be defeated,” and some men who voted for it now say they would not. The latter class no more can afford an answer, there can be but one answer and that is they were opposed to the principal at heart and voted for it because they were too low and cowardly to stand up like men and proclaim their convictions in the face of popular clamor.
That man who finds fault with the law and at the same time asserts that he is in favor of temperance, either has not exam­ined the law, or he is an infamous liar. To have honestly voted for the amendment and be in opposition to the law is impossible; the law is the amendment, nothing more and nothing less.
And when men prate about the law being too strong, they proclaim their knavery or else the want of sense. The people legally adopted the amendment; the Legislature in obedience to that will passed the law, and it is the duty of all good men to stand up for its enforcement, and the county officials should zealously search out, arrest, try, and convict every malefactor.
The legislature, in passing this law, has placed the ques­tion of its enforcement in the honor of the people, and they have elected officers whose duty it is to hunt up violators and bring them to justice.
And this reminds me that your correspondent has been in­formed that with the exception of your city marshal, John Burris, no officer has informed our county attorney of any violations. And yet, Burris, I am informed, voted against the amendment, but does his duty as an officer while Shenneman and the other offi­cers all voted for it and file no complaints. How is it that Mr. Shenneman finds criminals in every state in the Union, but can’t find any violations of this law with Frank Manny selling beer day in and day out and openly at that, and everybody knows it.

It is time that the people call a halt and give every officer who fails to find violations of their law a rest. This law means something, and the sooner our officials wake up to the fact the better, and those who are awake to it ought to be sup­ported, and those who are not ought to be bounced.
I have been a supporter of our sheriff, but I will not be again unless he can catch whiskey outlaws as well as horse thieves when rewards are paid. It will be in order now for some idiot to yell, “Why don’t you inform the officers?” To which I reply in advance, “I have, with the people, elected officers to do such work and they must do it.” And that officer who shines that he knows of no violations lies or has shut his eyes on purpose to avoid seeing. This temperance fight is not over; it has not commenced as it were. It will not stop now, but will go on until the object is accomplished, or Kansas goes back to her rum holes. OBSERVER.
Winfield Courier, June 23, 1881.
Frank Manny has stopped the COURIER; not the whole edition exactly, but the one copy, and will urge his friends to stop it too. He says he does not care to longer pay for the dissemina­tion of doctrines so damaging to his business interests. The position seems to be sound, and we accept it without a murmur. We shall continue to urge the strict enforcement of the prohibi­tory laws all the same, though we lose a thousand subscribers thereby. The law must be enforced, even though those who resist should be crushed. The bull that bucked the railroad train was brave enough, but confound his judgment.
Winfield Courier, June 23, 1881.
Mr. Frank Manny was arrested and brought before Justice Kelly Tuesday evening charged with selling beer in violation of the law. It will doubtless take several days to try this case, and we express no opinion as to the truth of the charge, desiring to avoid prejudicing the case in any way. We have no ill will against Mr. Manny, but we hold that the law must be enforced and whoever violates it should suffer the penalty. We do not appre­hend that jurymen here will perjure themselves to screen a man who is proved guilty. If any such should appear, we shall give his case due publicity.
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
The Manny trial is putting the attorneys on their metal and will show the quality of their temper.
It was dangerous to attend court Monday. The moment a new face appeared in the doorway, Sheriff Shenneman would call out:  “Take the jury box, please.”
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
When the list of witnesses for the State in the Manny trial was called, one of the attorneys for the defense promptly an­swered, “Present!”
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
Judge Campbell and Attorney Jennings “locked horns” several times during the Manny trial. It is needless to remark that the County Attorney came out ahead.
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.

The “volunteer counsel” assisting the state in the Manny trial made, or attempted to make, an argument Wednesday morning. His first sentence contained a broad and unmistakable inference that the gentleman preceding him had lied. The air for a few moments was blue, and as the Attorney so attacked came forward and asserted that the “volunteer counsel” was “a contemptible little puppy and his implications not worthy of notice,” ye reporter slid under the table. The efforts of the Sheriff and court finally quelled the storm, and peace and quiet was once more restored.
Related story...
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
He came, he saw, and he dropped $35 with the police and justice courts. He was a verdant citizen from the sandy suburbs of Arkansas City, and although he found at the “Hub” that prohi­bition didn’t entirely prohibit, still it made fun more costly than of old. He returned a sadder, and we hope a wiser man, but still a little drunk. His name was Albert Horn.
[THE MANNY TRIAL.]
Winfield Courier, June 30, 1881.
Winfield has been in a fever of excitement for the past few days over the arrest of Frank Manny for violating the prohibition amendment in selling beer. The trial was first brought before Justice Kelly, but the defense secured a change of venue to Justice Tansey’s court. Monday was the day set for the trial and early in the day numbers of spectators gathered to see the opening of the case.
The array of legal talent retained on the part of the defense was simply appalling:  Judge Campbell, with eight years’ experi­ence on the bench; J. E. Allen, one of the most precise and painstaking lawyers at the bar; O. M. Seward, the leading temper­ance attorney of the southwest; and Messrs. Soward & Asp, gentle­men of high standing at the bar. Certainly Mr. Manny should feel that his interests will be protected as far as the law is con­cerned.
County Attorney Jennings appeared for the State.
The hall opened at 9 o’clock, the jury was called, and the examination for jurors commenced. This proved to be a tedious matter as most everyone called had either formed or expressed an opinion, or had conscientious scruples that unfitted him for sitting in the case. Generally when a juror went into the box thinking he was unprejudiced, he found that he was mistaken before the lawyers got through with him. Up to noon thirty-five jurors had been called and twenty-nine of them proved to be incompetent.
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.
The following is a list of the jurors:  A. G. Wilson, James Bethel, E. P. Harlen, Elam Harter, I. N. Holmes, E. P. Kinne, J. H. Mounts, T. H. Jackson, T. S. Smith, Wm. Trezise, W. L. Moorehouse, and W. I. Shotwell.
                                                               TUESDAY.

The court met Tuesday morning and upon calling the jury, it was found that Mr. T. W. Jackson, of Vernon township, was absent. An attachment was issued by the court and the sheriff started for Mr. Jackson’s home. The court then adjourned until one o’clock. About two o’clock the sheriff arrived with Mr. Jackson, who was quite ill, and asked to be discharged. The court ruled that he must serve unless positively unable.
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.
                                                       MILLER LAUGHED!
The witness was allowed to answer the question; but instead of doing so, he laughed. The mouths of the audience cracked assunder, 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 buiding 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. This request raised argument and the court adjourned to meet Wednesday morning, when the question will be discussed.
Court convened promptly at 6 o’clock and Judge Soward opened the argument. Numerous authorities were cited, among which were the celebrated Burr and Morgan cases. County Attorney Jennings replied in an extended argument, citing a large number of authorities.
At noon, Wednesday, we go to press. As yet the case has not been fairly opened, the defense bringing up point after point for the decision of the court. Each point must be argued exhaustively, which takes time and how long no one can tell. The case will be fought step by step. The council for defense will leave no stone unturned, and Attorney Jennings, although bearing up under a terrible pressure, will melt them at every turn. Our reporter will attend the trial throughout and a complete record of the proceedings will appear in our next issue.
[THE MANNY TRIAL: EDITORIAL.]

Winfield Courier, July 7, 1881.
On Tuesday last the jurors in the case of the state against Frank Manny, for selling intoxicating drink in violation of law, having been out fifteen hours and failing to agree, were dis­charged by the court, and a new trial of the case was set for Monday, July 18th.
As the case is still pending, we shall yet be chary with our comments, but may with propriety say that so long as the defense was a denial of such sales, the defendant was entitled to patient hearing of his defense, and all the advantages which the law will give any one accused, but when the defense assumes the position that the law ought to be treated with contempt. because of its alleged atrocity, it amounts to a confession that the law has been violated. It seemed that the defense did not rely much upon the facts of the case, but upon the skill of the attorneys in inventing, and urging, various kinds of motions, objections, and dodges, by which they might obtain a ruling which would keep out evidence.
Such objections, one after another, were sprung upon the prosecuting attorney and the court, with such bewildering persis­tency and energy, that it was hardly possible, among the multi­plicity of correct rulings by the court, that they should not have extorted one bad ruling which would nearly accomplish their purpose.
We think the jurors should not have been discharged so soon, by at least three days, unless they agreed.
Justice Tansey evidently intended to make correct rulings in every instance, was honestly trying to support the law; but with such an overpowering array of legal talent, headed by the man whose opinion has been taken here for law for eight years, it is credited to him that his rulings were nearly all eminently correct. As we cannot speak near so favorably of some of the witnesses, and some of the jurors, we conclude by saying that it is the general verdict that the county attorney did himself proud.
Winfield Courier, July 7, 1881.
MILLINGTON THEN HAS ANOTHER LONG EDITORIAL ABOUT “TRIAL BY JURY” AND VENTS HIS WRATH ABOUT THE PRESENT SYSTEM...”The jury system as existing under our laws and descended to us from a semi-barbarous age of castes, may now be called an institution by which law breakers may escape conviction and punishment.”
[THE MANNY TRIAL.]
Winfield Courier, July 7, 1881.
                                                 THE EVIDENCE IN BRIEF.
Mr. Miller was then asked what he had drank at Manny’s. He stated that he had called for “ginger” and that he probably got what he called for. That it was about the color of barn-yard drainage, that he had bought a quart, and had paid twenty cents for it, that he had never become intoxicated on it, and had never drank more than two glasses at a time. He was then asked when he had heard that “ginger” was being sold there.
The defense objected, but the objection was overruled. The witness then said that it was about the middle of May. He stated that he had never seen anyone become intoxicated on this drink. That he lived several hundred feet from the brewery; that it had about the same effect as lemonade.

Mr. Jochems was then called. He had been at Manny’s brewery twice since the first of May. The defense then objected on the ground that the prosecution should confine itself to the sale already proven and the point was ably argued by Mr. Asp. Mr. Troup assisting the state, spoke for ten minutes, and Mr. Asp closed the argument. The objection was sustained and the court held the prosecution to the sale proven to Miller and allowed to introduce testimony to prove the drink known as “ginger” was intoxicating, providing no date or other sale than the one made to Miller was fixed by date. Mr. Jochems then testified that he had drank “ginger” and that it produced no effect on him.
                                                             LEVI GAINS
was then called. He testified that he had been to Manny’s with a friend; that the friend had bought “ginger” and they both drank it. That he thought it was intoxicating; that it had effected him and had considerably intoxicated his friend; that it looked like beer.
                                                              H. DEWEY.
Mr. Dewey stated that he had drank “ginger” at Manny’s; that it had no effect on him; that he noticed symptoms of intoxication upon the friend who went with him; that the friend had a half pint bottle of liquid; that he procured a bottle at the brewery.
                                                           JOHN GIBSON
swore that he had been at Manny’s brewery and had drank “ginger” there. Only one glass because he was afraid it would make him tight. Looked like beer; didn’t taste like beer; saw another party intoxicated.
                                                            W. W. SMITH
Testified that he had drank “ginger” at Manny’s which looked like beer, but had not much foam, and made him tight. Was there several times, first at about nine o’clock, was not intoxicated when first went, was not intoxicated much at any time.
Cross examination: Drank ginger. Had drank nothing else that day but a dose of medicine put up by Dr. Cole for flat bottle. I took two swallows during the day; kept it in my side pocket. Did not give it to anyone during the day; offered to trade my watch for a pony, and do not think I offered any man a drink from bottle. Had bottle of “ginger” which I got from Manny and man drank from. Was not positive was at brewery three times. Think two of us drank quart or half gallon, went to brewery second time. Did not know whether he got dinner or not. Stayed at brewery longer third time than first times. Think drank more than at other times. Was intoxicated that day. Got in that condition about nine o’clock, and do not think can recall all that happened. Others afterward recalled things that I had said and done that I knew nothing of. Felt next day all used up and knew I had been drunk. Was arrested that day for being drunk. Had trial before Justice Kelly. Has no interest in case. Has been offered no consideration to testify in case. Got medicine from Dr. Fleming instead of Dr. Cole. Is in the habit of drink­ing intoxicating liquor to some extent. Had no other bottle except medicine and bottle of “ginger” and drank nothing but “ginger that day.”
                                                           LOUIE ZENOR
was then called. The defense then introduced the objection that the prosecution had introduced all the witnesses necessary to prove the character of the liquor known as “ginger.” This objection was made on Tuesday and overruled by the court. The court again overruled the objection. The witness stated that he was familiar with the location of Manny’s brewery, that it was located on the east side of section 21, township 42, range 4.

Cross examination: Was not surveyed; had never found corners. Did not know whether brewery was in frame or stone building. Was familiar with records of county; had seen in register’s office. Had examined records in relation to this particular tract.
                                                       CHARLEY HODGES
had obtained from Mr. Manny a drink known as “ginger.” Color dark red, darker than beer. Did not know whether it was intoxi­cating or not. Had no effect upon him. Had drank three or four glasses at once. Had drank beer but had no effect on him. Did not know whether “ginger” was fermented liquor or not. Did not know what fermented liquor was. Had foam like beer. Went out to brewery because wanted something to drink. “Ginger” was not a common drink.
Cross examination: Had foam something like cider or soda water.
                                                             W. A. SMITH
had been to Manny’s. Thinks it was near the Walnut. Had drank “ginger.” Was a kind of “maroon” color. Darker than beer. Did not know whether it was fermented or not. Had no effect on his system. As compared with water for quenching, its effect was about the same. May have stimulated to a slight extent. Had taken two or three glasses at once. There was quite a number there with him. Has never seen anyone in or about Manny’s brewery intoxicated since the 1st of May.
                                                              A. D. SPEED
has obtained “ginger” at Manny’s. Was a pleasant drink. Dark color. Had color of beer. Don’t know whether it was fermented or not. Never drank enough to know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had drank two glasses at once. Did not think he could drink enough to intoxicate him.
                                                          WILBER DEVER
was called and stated that he had been at Manny’s, had obtained “ginger” from him. Pretty fair drink. Looks some like lager or Peruvian beer. Does not taste like beer. Does not know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had drank two or three glasses. Had never seen anyone intoxicated in or about Manny’s.
                                                     GEORGE REMBAUGH
had been to Manny’s. Had drank “ginger” there. Look some like Peruvian beer. Had foam on it. Did not know whether it was intoxicating or not. Had seen persons under the influence of something in and about Manny’s.
Cross examination: Thought Peruvian beer was slightly fermented to make it sparkle and foam. Re-examined by the state. Had about same effect as a glass of ice-water.
The state here rested its case. The defense also rested without introducing a witness.
The court then instructed the jury as follows:
The court instructs the jury that the question in this case is whether the sale made to Dan Miller about the 20th day of May, 1881, was a sale of liquor that would produce intoxication, and the burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the liquor was intoxicating liquor and this must be done by the evidence to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the state to show that the liquor sold to Miller was an intoxicating liquor and that it was not sold for mechani­cal, medicinal, or scientific purposes, that the sale was made at the place described in the complaint.

The defendant is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty, and the state is required to make out each particular and material point in the case to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and if, upon the whole of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, there is a reasonable doubt of guilt, the jury should acquit.
The argument of the state was opened by Mr. Beach in a general review of the evidence. He was followed by Judge Soward who made an able argument extending over an hour and a half, containing many excellent points. M. G. Troup followed with an hour, Judge Camp-bell with an hour and a half, and Attorney Jennings closed.
The jury remained out all night and till late the next day when, having failed to agree, they were discharged by the court. The ballot stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal.
[THE LAW VICTORIOUS: FRANK MANNY.]
Winfield Courier, July 14, 1881.
Frank Manny was again arrested last Friday: this time for maintaining a nuisance, under the prohibitory law, which makes the keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, a public nuisance, to be suppressed by due process, and the keeper thereof fined not less than one hundred dollars.
Saturday a jury was impaneled, consisting of W. C. Garvey, W. C. Robinson,  D. F. Long, Frank Weakley, W. W. Limbocker, Jacob Seiley, J. J. Plank,          Smith, A. H. Doane, Ed. Burnett, John Moffit, and T. J. Harris. This jury is a strong one, which could be depended upon for an intelligent and just verdict.
The case was set for hearing on Monday morning. On that morning Mr. Manny was arrested five times, successively, on different complaints for selling intoxicating drinks in violation of law.
This began to look more like a tornado than like a little squall, and the defendant was inclined to compromise. It was finally agreed that he should confess judgment on the nuisance complaint, and judgment be entered up against him, with a fine of $100, which he should pay, and also pay all the costs of the seven cases against him, close his place of sale, and abide the law, when the six other cases would be dismissed.
We have no unkind feelings against Mr. Manny, but the law must be enforced, whoever it may hurt. He stood in a position that, if others violated the law, it would be charged to him. Now others will have to stand on their own merits, and cannot shuffle off on him.
Arkansas City Traveler, July 13, 1881.
In the case of the State vs. Manny, tried at Winfield last week, the jury failed to agree. The suit was brought under the prohibition act, and a great number of witnesses were called, but beyond eliciting that “ginger” was a good and pleasant drink in the opinion of those who had partaken, no further facts were brought to light.
LATER. Since writing the above we learn that Manny has plead guilty to keeping a common nuisance and was fined $100. He closed his establishment, and the other cases against him were quashed upon his paying the costs. His defiance of the law cost him somewhere in the neighborhood of $300.
[STORY ABOUT BEER BEING AVAILABLE AT THE BREWERY IN WINFIELD.]
Winfield Courier, August 25, 1881.

The explanation of the Wichita Eagle’s story of the omnibus to the brewery and the rattling machine to drown the noise of the boys while drinking beer is as follows: that Frank Manny has a large garden or park of flowers and plants, and in this dry weather along back he has been using a great deal of water to water his garden and keep things lively and fresh. At his brewery is a large tank and a pump, which is run by mule power to fill the tank from which he uses water for the above purpose, and to supply a fine fountain of spray. Last Sunday week was a hot, withering day, and Frank ran his mule pump and watered his flowers and worked his fountain.
There were a lot of Wichita fellows at the camp grounds and Al Requa had a kind of express wagon omnibus, which was standing idle. So he sang out to the Wichita chaps: “All aboard for the brewery.” The said chaps piled in and rode up to the brewery, paying their little quarter apiece, but when they got there they could find no beer or ginger, and had to pay their way back. Of course, they would not admit to their friends that they were sold, so they told them that they got plenty of good beer, and this story was told in Wichita and there it became current that a buss was running from the camp meeting to the brewery.
[ENFORCING THE LAW.]
Winfield Courier, September 8, 1881.
The opponents of the prohibition law are loud mouth in their charges that the law is not and cannot be enforced; and that there is more beer and whiskey now than ever before. When we ask them, “Who is violating the law? Who is selling beer and whis­key?, they tell us that Frank Manny is selling beer every day and that every Sunday dozens of men come from his place drunk, that one man keeps a kind of a 16th section club house with whiskey on ice where a few of his particular friends go and drink whiskey when they want it; that Dr. Fleming and some other druggists are selling right along as a beverage, first prescribing liquor in pints and quarts as a medicine and then filling such prescrip­tions; that the express companies are receiving orders for beer and whiskey immediately after receiving the order, that their trade is enormous; and that our City Marshal drinks liquor but does not expose the seller.
Now we do not believe all these things. We do not believe all that is said of Manny or the marshal or Fleming or the Express companies. There may be a kernel of truth in each and all of these charges; but in the main, we believe them to be gross exaggerations, because we do not see on the streets the evidences of these things, or one-tenth of the evidence of drinking that we used to see a year ago.
If there is any truth in these stories, it is time that they were inquired into. All these charges are of violating the law and everyone of the parties named should be investigated and prosecuted to the extent of the law if there is evidence found against them. . . .
Winfield Courier, November 17, 1881.
Frank Manny is going to have the finest flower and vegetable garden in the State. He is preparing his grounds in the best style, plowing deep with a subsoil plow, and will be ready in the spring to make a show. This year he made a good start and made things bloom, but nothing to what he intends for the coming year. We admire his pluck. Prostrated in his business by the prohibi­tion law, he does not go to Missouri to sell beer, he never gives up, but turns his attention into the best channel open to him and means to stay.
[COLUMN: YOU CAN MARK IT IN YOUR LITTLE BOOK.]

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.
That L. Knight has a typewriter.
That taxes in this city are lower than last year.
That it will pay anyone to walk out and take a look at the plants and flowers by Frank Manny’s hot houses.
Cowley County Courant, December 29, 1881.
Those peculiar vases of artificial flowers, that attract so much attention in Goldsmith’s window, were imported direct from Paris by Frank Manny.
Winfield Courier, December 29, 1881.
The Misses Kate and Jessie Millington were the recipients of a very beautiful Christmas present, of which they are justly proud. It consists of a valuable collection of imported artifi­cial plants in an elegant and unique vase. In the collection are Begonias, Colens, Wandering Jew, and other rich plants which are so perfect in form and colors that they are taken for natural plants by most who have seen them. Mr. Frank Manny is the kind and enterpris­ing donor to whom they desire to express their cordial thanks.
Cowley County Courant, January 5, 1882.
Mrs. J. P. Short was the recipient of a beautiful Christmas present in the shape of a fine majolica jar of foliage plants, for window ornament. Mr. Frank Manny was the generous donor, and kindly gave Mrs. Short a first choice from his well-stocked greenhouse.
Cowley County Courant, January 5, 1882.
Fish commissioner D. H. Long, at the request of Senator Hackney, has forwarded to the care of James Foster, of Vernon Township, eighty young carp, which arrived here today in fine condition. James Foster and N. C. Clark will take forty of the fish and will stock some natural ponds that are on the farms.
C. A. Bliss will place twenty of the number in the Walnut River near the mill, and Frank Manny will place the remaining twenty in Dutch Creek.
Messrs. Foster and Clark have made a wise move. In one year these fish will be eighteen inches long, and if they are success­ful in the propagation of the fish, it will not be long before they will be able to keep their table supplied with fresh fish of a choice variety.
Cowley County Courant, January 19, 1882.
TOWNSHIP MEETING. A meeting of the Republican voters of Walnut Township will be held at Frank Manny’s Saturday, January 28th, at 2 o’clock, p.m., for the purpose of nominating candi­dates for township offices.
                                       S. CURE, Chairman, Township Committee.
Cowley County Courant, January 19, 1882.
Speed’s henchman, the German youth who has been making fun for the boys and girls too, has gone away and his absence is felt by many. He did not stay here long. Ed. (we do not know his last name) is about 18 years old; and has been in this country about seven weeks, and during that time has learned to converse freely in the English language, though when he has become excit­ed, or was obliged to swear, always relied upon his mother tongue; and in either case, it never failed him.

The boy is a wandering wonder and his written life would read like an overdrawn story. Perfectly unfamiliar with American manners and ideas, seemingly oblivious to all restraint, but not particularly vicious or mean, he has since he has been here, wandered as free as air, guided by nothing but a devil in him as big as a house. There has been nothing desperate, daring, or great in his doings, but the multiplicity of the scrapes he has gotten into is astonishing, and when his character is appreciat­ed, are ludicrous in the extreme.
The boy is by no means bad looking; he is full of animal spirits, joking and cutting up with everybody he knows. Though young he is a musical genius, and plays on any instrument on which he can get his fingers. In Germany he must have been the same devilish boy, for his usual method of extorting money from his mother was by threatening to hang himself if it was not forthcoming. About two months ago he sailed from his fatherland for the home of the brave. He departed with a mother’s blessing, an accordion, a violin, a mouth organ, and a gun, and one hundred dollars in money.
A few weeks ago he found himself here with Mr. Manny, who endeavored to make something out of him. About work time he was generally conspicuous by his absence, and with any dog he could make friends with—and that was any dog he could find—he would wander off on a hunting expedition. He was forever getting into scrapes, but never into work, and his last demonstration was leaving a man all day to hold stopped the bung hole of a large vat. It would have been all right, but he and the dog got interested in each other and went off after rabbits. That was the last straw, and he took his gun and musical instruments and came uptown.
He agreed with Speed to clean the horses if dinner would be furnished him at the restaurant. This was done, but after dinner, the youth was nowhere to be found. Sometime after that he was found in the Brettun House parlor playing the piano. For some time he furnished lots of fun for the boys. His passion for dogs knew no bounds, and one day one of the boys gave him a dog and told him to go hunting.
There wouldn’t have been anything funny about that if the fellow who presented him with the dog hadn’t presented the dog with some turpentine as only wicked boys know how, and the dog’s attention was too distracted to do any hunting, so Ed. broke the gun over the dog’s back. The gun was then traded for a four-chambered pistol and the dog was laid up for repairs. Some of his other dog adventures we have already given.
Speed then offered the fellow fifty cents to thrash one of the stable boys, and he undertook the job. After he was hauled out of the manure pile and straightened up some, he gathered up his musical instruments and departed for a short time. But he soon returned and spent a good deal of his time hunting dogs and making a band of himself for the benefit of the boys. He was pestered a good deal without showing much desire to retaliate, but he got his Dutch up at last and commenced to flourish his pistol around rather promiscuously when it was taken away from him, the loads removed, and the pistol thrown in the stove. He watched the last of his little German gun ascend in smoke with considerable ire, and drawing a box of cartridges from his pocket, he attempted to throw them after the pistol, remarking, “Vell, God tam! go wid ‘em.” His hand was stayed in time or, it is needless to say, there would have been fun around that stove.

At last one of our farmers living in the north part of the county took an interest in the boy and took him home to make something of him. He set him at work sawing wood and about the first thing he did was to break the saw blade. He was then handed an ax and would probably have amputated a foot if it hadn’t been taken away from him. To give him something he could do, he was told to drive in the hogs. As he was already on splendid terms with the dog, he took his bosom friend along to assist him, and in about a half an hour the two had managed to kill the best hog in the drove. As he wasn’t earning any money at this kind of work, he was given the gun which he had longed for ever since he had set his eyes on it, and it wasn’t long before he came back radiant with six fine tame ducks, the pride of the farmer’s wife, and which he had taken in out of the wet on one grand pot shot. When told that the ducks were tame, he held them up and pointed at their heads triumphantly. He said, “Hell! green head, green head! wild, wild!” All this could have been forgiven if he hadn’t fallen in love with the farmer’s daughter. He was going in with his accustomed energy when his bright dreams were dis­pelled and he was again given the grand bounce.
He came back to town and immediately wrote two letters to the light of his soul, and failing to get a response, he offered Speed a hundred dollars for a horse to ride to that home where he had spent a few happy days. The offer was not taken, but he wasn’t discouraged. He knew how to love a dog, but when it came to loving a girl, his soul ran clear away with him. He gathered up his accordion and violin, and the first wagon he found going north he climbed in and went along. The man with whom he rode took him about five miles from the goal of his desire, showed hm the rest of the way, and he struck out. There was a creek between him and his desires, but across he went, with no further damage than the loss of his loved accordion. With undaunted courage, like another Leander, he pressed on, and reached the farmer’s house about eleven o’clock at night, and he proceeded to wake the folks up, and informed them that he had returned to stay.
There was a slight scene, and the next morning he returned to town. Day before yesterday, James Fahey returned to New Mexico, and with him went the young, the brave, the talented, the devilish fair-haired Teuton. What will become of him now, the Lord only knows. He is restless as the wind, and his caprices will lead him to glory or the grave. We are sorry he has gone, and we have laughed till we have cried, over the doings of this meteor of humanity.
Speed’s henchman has departed and the shadow of a sorrow rests upon the livery stable. The boys all miss him, and the dogs are bathed in gloom. Somebody will try to make something of him, and there’s no telling what will happen then. When the trumpet of Gabriel will sound, we believe he will come up smil­ing, bearing his accordion, violin, and French harp, and at the feet of the first meek eyed angel he sees, will be laid his treasures. Until then, au revoir.
Winfield Courier, January 26, 1882.
Frank Manny brought us a fine bunch of radishes from his brewery hot house last Friday. He is brewing out all sorts of vegetables, “garden sass,” and flowers, and will soon be able to supply customers in any quantity, and the most radical prohibitionist need not fear to visit his extensive works. In one of his hot houses he has 4,000 pounds of glass to cover his beds. Frank is irrepressible and if he is not to do one thing, he will do another. He is bound that his property shall be put to some use. We honor his pluck, his good nature, his intelligence, and clear cut good sense.
Cowley County Courant, February 2, 1882.

The Walnut Township Republican convention met according to published notice at Frank Manny’s stone building. Ezra Meech was appointed chairman and F. S. Jennings, secretary. The following nominations were made: For Trustee: J. C. Roberts. For Clerk: T. A. Blanchard. Treasurer: Joel Mack. Justice of the Peace: S. E. Burger. Constables: Henry Perry, colored, and Jethro Cochran. Road Overseers: District No. 1, George Brown; District No. 2, Perry Hill.
Winfield Courier, February 9, 1882.
The Catholic Fair which is to open Wednesday evening bids fair to be a success. Many valuable articles have been donated by the liberal minded citizens of Winfield. They have also contributed very largely in money, groceries, merchandise, etc. The names of the several donors will be attached to the articles. At this writing we were unable to learn all. Among the articles given is an artificial flower pot, donated by our genial friend, Mr. F. Manny. It is a thing of beauty and the winner will regard it as a joy forever.
Winfield Courier, February 16, 1882.
Frank Manny’s Flying Dutchman has been heard from. He is in Las Vegas making fun for the boys, and some of them have almost come to the conclusion that he is luny. Speed knows better than that.
Winfield Courier, February 23, 1882.
                                                         The Catholic Fair.

“A little fun now and then is relished by the best of men.” The Catholic Fair, which closed Friday evening, Feb. 10, was the source of much amusement to the people of Win-field. Everything in the way of pleasure was there, and the citizens did not fail to patronize the good work. The businessmen when called upon for contributions responded liberally, as did the ladies, in donating the various articles for a supper and refreshment tables. The fancy articles which were donated were duly appreciated, and served to decorate the booths nicely. We do not pretend to name the several articles; however, we will give a few. The china set of one hundred and fifty seven pieces, which was won by Mr. J. B. Lynn, who afterwards presented it to Father Kelly, occupied a prominent position on one of the tables. A handsome family Bible, a fine gold necklace and bracelets, donated by Mr. P. Lavery; a wax cross, a silver castor, donated by Mr. Schroeter; a silver butter dish and knife, the gift of Hudson Bros.; an artificial flower pot, given by F. Manny; a large wax doll, a silver pickle castor, and two silver goblets, donated by Mr. and Mrs. C. Buckley; a Kalo-meda set, given by Johnson & Hill; a pair of vases, by Harter Bros.; lace curtains, by Mr. Hahn; a box of fancy note-paper, by Mr. P. Buckley; a handsome album, by Mrs. Charlie Allen, of Wichita; a pair of vases, by H. Goldsmith; a pair of gentleman’s slippers, by Smith Bros.; pin cushions, tidies, toilet sets, mats, pillow shams and numerous other articles, which decorated the fancy tables over which Mrs. J. C. Fuller and Mrs. Pierce presided. The refreshment stand was taken charge of by the Misses Healey, McGonigle, and Kelly. The supper table was superintended by Mrs. Dockery and Mrs. Lanbener. Miss Kate Healey was postmaster and distributed many letters and valentines to the young folks. Mrs. Charlie Allen, from Wichita, took care of the oyster table. Our friend, Capt. H. H. Siverd, was the winner of the hanging lamp and pickle castor; he deserved them for his energy in trying to make the fair a success. Dr. C. C. Green won the horse. The ball, though last, was not least. It was conducted with so much propriety that many church members were tempted to “tip the light fantastic toe.” Capt. C. Steuven was floor manager. There were many visitors here during the fair. Mrs. E. Woolheater, Mr. Buck, from Newton, Miss D. McDoigle, from Leavenworth, and Mrs. Charlie Allen, from Wichita, being noticed. Nearly all the young folks of Winfield were out. The young men were very gallant and generous in taking chances on all articles to be disposed of in that way. Capt. W. Whiting, Dave Harter, Ad Powers, Willie Smith, C. Hodges, J. Hyden, Fred Whiting, Ed and H. Cole, C. C. Harris, J. O’Hare, H. Seward, and A. D. Speed were among the many who assisted in making the fair a success, both socially and financially, and we feel sure the Catholics will feel grateful for the kindness of all those who contributed toward the good work.
[EDITORIAL.]
Cowley County Courant, March 2, 1882.
Not content with the false statements made by Saint John, the Courier must, of course, do as its candidate does and indulge in some lightning calculating on its own account. In last week’s issue in a short editorial under the head of “Whisky vs. Schools” and speaking of the recent distribution of the county school fund, the following appeared in the Courier. “The amount of county fund is 20 cents for each pupil in the county. This county fund is composed principally of the fines assessed against violators of the prohibitory law. Under local option the school fund received no benefit from the liquor business. Each pupil in Cowley County can consider that it has received twenty cents worth of schooling out of the refractory liquor dealers.”
It would be hard to crowd into another article of that space as many false statements. For the sake of the common cause of truth and honesty, we will state the facts. The county school fund apportioned was 20 cents for each pupil and amounted to $1,438.80. Of course, this comes from fines. The fines in this amount, assessed under the prohibitory law, amounts to just exactly $300. ($200 paid by Fleming and $100 paid by Manny.)  The number of pupils under which the apportionment was made was 7,194. This would make to each pupil between four and five cents.
“Each pupil in Cowley County can consider that it has received twenty cents worth of schooling out of the refractory liquor dealers.” They may consider as the Courier states, but they will consider one of the most monumental pieces of ignorance we ever had brought to our notice. The statement that “under the local option law the school fund received no benefit from the liquor business” is fully as true as the other. Of the school fund apportioned about $187 was for fines under the old local option law. This county school fund consisted of fines for gambling arising out of the action of the last grand jury.
It may be that ignorance caused the Courier to make this awful break, but such ignorance is more criminal than deliberate prevarication. No person who would spend five minutes investi­gating the matter would make such statements and a newspaper that shows so little care in its utterances and such a disregard for any approach toward facts isn’t to be given common credence.
The Courier, intoxicated with vanity, and straining every nerve like a man pulling himself up by his boot straps, sees nothing but its own glorification and sacrifices nothing to secure the object of its sight.

Cowley County Courant, March 23, 1882.
Frank Manny has the telephone in good working shape. The more we see of this instrument the greater becomes our admiration for this wonderful development of human genius.
Winfield Courier, March 23, 1882.
Frank Manny has one of the best conservatories of plants and flowers in the state. If you want pots of plants, bouquets of choice flowers, or early vegetables of any kind, you will find them in the best style and in profusion at his greenhouses.
Cowley County Courant, March 30, 1882.
TO THE PUBLIC: I work as other men; I believe in the Sabbath day, “to keep it holy,” and take my rest; and in kindness to each and all, I wish if you desire to see the flowers, hot-beds, or visit my place, that you call on week days instead of Sunday, and you will find me ever at your service. FRANK MANNY.
Cowley County Courant, April 6, 1882.
The land and creek, adjacent to my buildings, cost me $200.00 per acre. If I should go on someone’s lot in the city, without his consent, and take his berries, it is considered a theft; but it seems that laymen, ministers, and others think they can trespass upon my premises and take fish without permit, leave, or thanks. Is this sufficient? FRANK MANNY.
[WINFIELD TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS.]
Cowley County Courant, April 6, 1882.
                                             Winfield Telephone Connections
FOR SOME REASON THEY SKIP #1 AND #2...AND NO. 6..????
 3. M. L. Read’s residence.
 4. Fred. Whitney’s residence.
 5. M. L. Robinson’s residence.
 7. Hackney & McDonald’s law office.
 8. Wilson’s transfer office.
 9. The Court House.
10. Adam’s express office.
11. Wells, Fargo express office.
12. A. H. Doane & Co.’s coal office.
13,  THE COURANT office.
14. Carruthers’ residence.
15. A. T. Spotswood & Co., grocery.
16. Bliss & Wood, city mills.
17. M. L. Read’s bank.
18. The Courier office.
19. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe depot.
20. K. C., L. & S. depot.
21. Frank Manny’s residence.
22. The Brettun.
23. Steinberger’s residence.
24. J. P. Baden’s general store.

25. Curns & Manser’s loan office.
Winfield Courier, April 6, 1882.
                                                         Fairview Gleanings.
Joe Roberts has purchased an interest in the washing machine business and has moved to Winfield, where he has opened an office near Frank Manny’s brewery. Soon Joe will be seen meandering over the county teaching the women how to wash. I venture to say that he will be able to equal any “heathen Chinee” in a short time, especially in the vocation of washerwoman.
[EDITORIAL.]
Winfield Courier, April 13, 1882.
                                                       WON’T COMBINE.
Frank Manny says that a druggist who has got into trouble for selling liquor wants all the anti-prohibitionists to combine and contribute money to fight the law. That under the license law that he (Manny) built a brewery and sold beer, paying his taxes and licenses, and did a legal and honest business. That Jo Likowski and other saloon men paid their $500 license each in advance and gave heavy bonds to obey the law, but the druggists sold right along all they could without paying any license or giving bonds or getting into trouble. That the brewers and saloon men voted and worked against the amendment because it would render their business illegal, but most of the druggists voted for the amendment in order to drive out the competition of the breweries and saloons and get all the trade themselves. That when he (Manny) got into trouble for trying to save something out of his stock of beer on hand when the law came into effect and after his property had been depreciated more than ten thousand dollars by the law, the druggists did not combine to fight the law, not much, but it cost him (Manny) about six hundred dollars. That now if the druggists get in conflict with the law by selling liquor, he is willing they should fight it out with their own money and see how they come out.
Our comment is that if Frank violates the law, he should be prosecuted; but if there is another who is ten times as dirty and vile in the violation of the law, we want him prosecuted with corresponding vigor.
Related article...
Winfield Courier, April 13, 1882.
                                                RACY CORRESPONDENCE.
Here seems to be an attempt either to array the German vote against the Hon. W. P. Hackney as a candidate for Congressman at large, or to get him to hedge against his principles. Whatever effect it may have in the former direction, it falls in the latter. While he is friendly to the German element, he is outspoken and will stand by his convictions if he don’t get a vote. You always know where to find him and can rely on what he says. As a friend, no one is more valuable and helpful, but as a fighter no one can do more effective work. The following is the correspondence.
                                          WICHITA, KANSAS, April 6th, 1882.
WM. HACKNEY, ESQ., Winfield, Kansas.

DEAR SIR: Information has been received that you expect the nomination for Congress, I, being one of the German Liberal Committee, would ask you to give me a little information as to how you stand in regard to the German vote.
How do you stand on the prohibition question?
Did you not have at one time trouble with a German in Illinois?
Please answer these questions at your earliest convenience, and oblige. Yours Respt.,
                                                         FRITZ SNITZLER.
                                                  WINFIELD, April 7th, 1882.
FRITZ SNITZLER, ESQ., Wichita, Kansas.
SIR: In reply to your letter of April 6th wherein you say “Information has been received that you expect the nomination for Congress, etc.” Also propounding to me questions.
Permit me to say that I don’t know anything about any German vote. Most are doubtless aware of the fact that all voters in this country are American, either by birth or by adoption, and any attempt to drag into our politics the nationality is un-American and un-Republican. As to how I stand on the prohibition question, permit me to say that I opposed the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment because I doubted the propriety or the policy of so radical a change, yet I recognized the correctness of the principle, and since observing its practical workings, I am thoroughly convinced that prohibition is not only right in principle, but is dictated by both policy and humanity, and I am in favor of perpetuating the principle by such legislation as will drive the traffic from every foot of Kansas soil. I never had any trouble with a German in Illinois, and it would be none of your business or that of your committee if I had. Respectfully, W. P. HACKNEY.
Cowley County Courant, April 13, 1882.
Speed, Seward, and Smith went out fishing the other after­noon with unusual good success. Speed caught a terrible cold, Seward caught a glimpse of his best girl as he passed her home, and Smith caught the toe of Frank Manny’s number eleven boot, for fooling around his premises. They returned home just after sundown with a long string of excuses, telling how busy they had been, and that they could not get time to go fishing on such a fine afternoon.
Cowley County Courant, April 13, 1882.
Frank Manny has for sale in any quantity cabbage, tomatoes, and sweet potato plants of all the different varieties. Each one purchasing 10,000 plants and over at one time will be presented with a chromo, either Jesse James, Saint John, the present Governor, or of the next Governor of Kansas.
Winfield Courier, April 13, 1882.
Warrants were issued Monday for the arrest of Doc. Holland and Frank Manny, the former for unlawfully prescribing liquor, and the latter for unlawfully selling liquor.
[SOME COURIER CLIPS.]
Arkansas City Traveler, April 19, 1882.
Warrants were issued last Monday for the arrest of Doc. Holland and Frank Manny, the former for unlawfully prescribing liquor, and the latter for unlawfully selling liquor.
Winfield Courier, April 20, 1882.
                                                         TRIAL DOCKET.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term of the District Court, commencing on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1882.

                                           CRIMINAL DOCKET, FIRST DAY.
 1. State vs. Lewis Albright.
 2. State vs. J. W. McRorry.
 3. State vs. George Ousterhout.
 4. State vs. H. L. Wells.
 5. State vs. John Headrick.
 6. State vs. John Fleming.
 7. State vs. John Fleming.
 8. State vs. David V. Cole.
 9. State vs. Thomas H. Bassywater.
10. State vs. Charles G. Thompson.
11. State vs. W. A. Irwin.
12. State vs. Charles F. Foults.
13. State vs. Charles G. Holland.
14. State vs. Frank Manny.
15. State vs. Henry H. Causey.
16. State vs. James T. Shepard.
Cowley County Courant, April 20, 1882.
                                                         TRIAL DOCKET.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term of the District Court, commencing on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1882.
                                           CRIMINAL DOCKET, FIRST DAY.
 1. State vs. Lewis Albright.
 2. State vs. J. W. McRorry.
 3. State vs. George Ousterhout.
 4. State vs. H. L. Wells.
 5. State vs. John Headrick.
 6. State vs. John Fleming.
 7. State vs. John Fleming.
 8. State vs. David V. Cole.
 9. State vs. Thomas H. Bassywater.
10. State vs. Charles G. Thompson.
11. State vs. W. A. Irwin.
12. State vs. Charles F. Foults.
13. State vs. Charles G. Holland.
14. State vs. Frank Manny.
15. State vs. Henry H. Causey.
16. State vs. James T. Shepard.
Winfield Courier, April 27, 1882.
                                                   FRANK MANNY SHOT.
                               He Charges a Pole Cat and Gets Skunked in the Race.
                                                        Laid Up for a Month.

This has been a most prolific week for accidents. Frank Manny is the latest victim. For some time skunks have been catching his chickens and Monday he borrowed a pistol from a neighbor from which to attack them. About four o’clock Tuesday morning a chicken squawked and this being the pre-arranged signal for an assault, Frank jumped up, grabbed his pistol, and rushed out to the hen house. The skunk smelled the battle from afar and beat a hasty retreat with Frank in hot pursuit. He held the pistol in his hand and was pulling the hammer back when he stumbled over a pile of rocks and fell with the pistol under him. As he went down it was discharged, the shot taking effect in his side, ranging upward and striking a short rib, which changed its course and it came out about four inches back of where it entered, making a painful but not serious wound. It was a narrow escape for Frank. As it is, he will be laid up for a month or more.
Cowley County Courant, April 27, 1882.
Again, we are called upon to chronicle another accident, resulting from the accidental discharge of a pistol, Frank Manny being the victim. It seems that Frank has been annoyed very much of late by depredating skunks which could not withstand the allurements of his chicken house. He, becoming tired of the nuisance, borrowed a pistol of a neighbor and prepared to make it interesting for the pests. Between three and four o’clock this morning, Frank heard unmistakable signs that induced him to make a raid. Seizing his pistol he made his way to the chicken house, and saw one of the animals slipping around and immediately gave chase, cocking his pistol as he ran. During the chase he stum­bled on a pile of rock, which threw him violently to the ground with the pistol pressed close to his side, which exploded, the ball penetrating the flesh and muscles of the left side, striking the fifth rib, and coming out about eight inches from the en­trance. Frank says that when he fell he heard the pistol go off and felt something warm and concluded he had something and had better get to the house. A perfect impression of the hammer can be seen on his side, showing the violence of his fall.
As we saw Frank laying there suffering, but kind and gentle, we were irresistibly impressed by the similarity of characters between Frank and Dicken’s Mark Tapley, in Martin Chuzzlewit, the more trouble he had the more cheerful he became. We earnestly hope Frank’s wound may not prove to be of a serious nature and that his jolly face may soon again be seen upon the streets.
Cowley County Courant, April 27, 1882.
Frank Manny is an original Dutchman for a fact. He has one of the finest delivery wagons in the world, not a red wagon but a green one, and upon either side is lettered “Beer and Ice.” This was put on before the days of prohibition, and recently some have complained of Frank because he still carried the sign, so this morning he appeared on the street with his wagon delivering ice, and over the word “beer” was tacked a neat strip of mourning crepe.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 3, 1882.
Frank Manny, of Winfield, accidentally shot himself, last Wednesday, while on the look-out for a chicken thief. He is convalescing.
Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.
Frank Manny is a kind of philanthropist and takes his confinement in good spirits. He is getting along well and will probably be about again in a few days.
Cowley County Courant, May 11, 1882.

The Republicans of Walnut township held a meeting at Frank Manny’s stone brewery building last Saturday at which the follow­ing delegates and alternates were elected to attend the County Convention to be held in this city May the 13th inst.
J. L. King
M. A. Graham
S. E. Burger
S. Cure
H. W. Stubblefield
Alternates: T. A. Blanchard, Joel Mack, John C. Roberts, Chas. Wilson, and C. E. Metzgar.
The delegates were instructed to also vote for delegates to the State Convention to be held in Topeka on the 24th day of June next.
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
Frank Manny was on the street Tuesday. He is pretty lame, but able to be about.
Cowley County Courant, May 25, 1882.
We are glad to see Frank Manny, who had the misfortune to accidentally shoot himself in the side some three weeks ago, able to be up and around. It’s pretty hard to hold a Dutch-man down in this climate.
Winfield Courier, June 1, 1882.
Frank Manny has a new monkey which he received from New York last week. Frank has been disconsolate ever since the boys fed matches to his other monkey and made a first-class corpse of his little form. We hope Frank will be happier now, and that the present monkey will be spared to brighten and cheer his declining years.
Winfield Courier, June 1, 1882.
                                                              Old Soldiers.
       WALNUT TOWNSHIP, HEADQUARTERS CO. F & CO. V., MAY 26TH, 1882.
                                                   SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1.
In accordance with General Order No. 4, received from Regimental Head Quarters, all the members of Co. F, Cowley Co. Veteran Soldiers, that desire to attend the reunion at Topeka in Sept., will report at the Hall near Mr. Frank Manny’s, on Saturday, June 2, 1882, at 2 p.m. All those that desire to go must report at once. By order of
H. W. STUBBLEFIELD, Capt. Commanding.
SAMUEL BURGER, Orderly Sergeant.
Cowley County Courant, June 8, 1882.
Walnut Township Special Order No. 1, Co. F, Cowley County Veterans: In accordance with general order No. 4, received from Regimental Headquarters, all members of Co. F, Cowley Co. Veteran soldiers who desire to attend the re-union at Topeka in September, will report at the hall near Mr. Frank Manny’s on Saturday, June 3rd, 1882, at 2 o’clock P.M. Those desiring to go must report at once. By order of H. W. STUBBLEFIELD, Capt.
SAM’L BURGER, Orderly Sergeant.
[LETTER FROM FRANK MANNY TO GOVERNOR ST. JOHN.]
Cowley County Courant, June 22, 1882.
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO READ!

Gather someone [St. John ??] stated:
“One of the buildings which was operated and owned 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 prohibi-tion law against roses and verbenas.”
MANNY REALLY OBJECTED TO ALL OF THIS!
HE ENDS UP SAYING:
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.
Winfield Courier, June 22, 1882.
                                             FRANK MANNY VS. ST. JOHN.
Frank Manny rushes into print in the Commonwealth addressed to Gov. St. John and accusing him of falsehood and of having “grossly, unfairly, and unjustly misrepresented” him (Frank). The following is the matter complained of.
“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.’”
The governor seems to represent Frank as a good law abiding citizen who, when the law prohibiting the brewing of beer for the purpose of a beverage, turns his brewery into use for lawful purposes and tries to do good and beautify the earth. Frank thinks it injurious to him to be so represented, but seems to want it understood that he is a determined and persistent law-breaker and law-defyer. Now we do not know whether Frank Manny and Gov. St. John ever had any conversation together, but we do know that Frank Manny has had many conver-sations with us in which he has represented to us that he has been using his grounds and some of his buildings in the cultivation of flowers and vegetables, and had in use, we forget how many, acres and tons of glass, covering his hot beds, etc. We told the governor this and took him up there to see his grounds and buildings, but did not find Frank nor get into his grounds or buildings, but what we could see outside. It appeared that Frank’s representations to us were true, and we made remarks to the governor complimentary to Frank, for we believed that he was obeying the law as a good citizen should, and trying to turn his property to as good account as possible. Since then we have several times spoken of this new use of his brewery in our paper as very praiseworthy in Frank and he has never pretended to us that he was doing otherwise. The governor reads the COURIER and probably got all his informa-tion from it and us.
We don’t believe he has said that Frank Manny told him personally “there is no prohibi-tion against roses and verbenas,” or anything else.

Now if we have misrepresented Frank to the governor by giving him too good a charac-ter, we humbly beg his and the governor’s pardon.
[EDITORIAL COLUMN.]
Cowley County Courant, June 29, 1882.
It seems that Governor St. John has been making some state­ments about Frank Manny and his brewery, in his addresses. Manny wrote him an open letter pointing out the fact that said state­ments were at variance with the truth, in any shape. Now comes the Courier and in effect says that the Governor ought not to be held responsible as he read that paper and got his information therefrom. For the truth of history, we can’t see that it makes any difference whether it be St. John or the Courier that lies. The thought naturally suggests itself, are the Governor’s speech­es entirely based upon information derived from such sources as the Courier, and is it all as unreliable as that paper virtually admits it to be in this instance? The Courier should have more regard for the reputation of its candidate. There ought to be a law prohibiting political lying.
Cowley County Courant, 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.
Cowley County Courant, July 4, 1882.
MR. EDITOR: When the Angel of Death had drawn his curtain around the form of one of the “Old Pioneers” of this city, I felt that I must pay some tribute or respect to one of the first ladies who came to Cowley County; and not thinking my actions would be miscon­strued, I did the best I could by sprinkling the roadway in front of my house—placing the flag of her own loved country at half-mast, and that of my own nativity beneath it, ere the procession passed by my place yesterday. But I was aggrieved this morning to learn that some parties were reporting that I had acted disrespectfully toward the dead, and wounded the feelings of the friends. Such was not my purpose, nor does a single act of mine point to any such intention. Because some of the igno­rant must talk, others must suffer; but I trust they will learn, in time, some of the common and proper courtesies that may be extended on such occasions. FRANK MANNY.
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.
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.
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.
[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 member-ship ought not to be taken by the COURIER or its readers as entirely accurate. D. C. B.
[TELEPHONES.]
Winfield Courier, November 9, 1882.
The following is a list of telephones in use in this city: 1. Allen Johnson. 2. Dr. Davis. 3. M. L. Read’s Residence. 4. Whiting Meat Market. 5. M. L. Robinson’s Residence.12. Winfield Bank. 13. J. W. McDonald’s Office. 21. Court House. 22. Transfer Office. 31. Adams Express. 32. Wells, Fargo Express. 33, A. H. Doane & Co. 34. Telegram Office. 36. A. T. Spotswood. 37. City Mills. 38. Read’s Bank. 41. COURIER Office. 42. A., T. & S. F. Depot. 43. K. C., L. & S. K. 44. Manny Residence. 45. Brettun House. 47. Millington Residence. 46. J. P. Baden, 1. 46. J. P. Baden, 2. 48. Curns & Manser. 49. Miller, Dix & Co.

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.
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 of 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 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.
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.
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.
Murder of Mrs. White covered because of location near Manny...
Arkansas City Traveler, June 10, 1885.
A married woman named White, living in Winfield, was brutally beaten by her husband on Monday night, until her life is despaired of.
Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, June 13, 1885.
                                                 A Horrible Murder at Winfield.
Last Tuesday morning the denizens of Winfield learned that a horrible tragedy has been enacted on the previous night. During the storm which raged Monday night, some unknown fiend entered the house of Robt. White, who resides on Timber Creek near Frank Manny’s brewery, and murdered his wife.
It was a brutal murder; and if the citizens of the county seat had discovered the perpetrator of the horrible deed on Tuesday morning, he would have most likely attended a hemp neck-tie party. But the whole affair is enshrouded in mystery. Some were prone to lay the deed at the hands of the murdered woman’s husband, who is regarded with suspicion. The story he tells does not make him entirely blameless and is as follows.
It seems that White has a fear of cyclones, and on Monday night at about 12 o’clock, as it looked as if a cyclone was coming up, he took some cover and went out to a lime kiln nearby to protect himself. Mrs. White and the two children remained in the house. White remained in the kiln about two hours; and when he returned to the house, he found his wife’s head hanging over the edge of the bed with her face covered with blood.
Neighbors and physicians were summoned. White at first supposed that his wife had fallen and hurt herself, but soon ascertained that the injuries were very severe. The woman died Tuesday evening. The attending physician removed a piece of the skull bone almost as large as a dollar.
White takes the matter very calmly and almost coolly, and this is one reason suspicion was aroused against him.

White is a painter, and industrious, and no family quarrel is known to have occurred between husband and wife. The two children who were in the bed with their mother are aged two and five years. The family was very poor and lived in a hovel. They came to Winfield about three months ago from Illinois.
LATER. Dr. Marsh was summoned and held an inquest. The jury’s verdict was that the deceased came to her death by a blow from a flat iron in the hands of her husband. White has been arrested.
Arkansas City Republican, July 18, 1885.
Robt. H. White, the man who was in jail at Winfield for the murder of his wife, was discharged from custody Thursday by Justice Snow. The preliminary examination failed to show up any convicting evidence. White is still in Winfield.
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, July 22, 1885.
                                                 FROM OUR EXCHANGES.
Caldwell Journal:
Robert H. White, charged with wife murder in Winfield, has been discharged. The crime is laid upon an imbecile who was seen prowling about the house on the evening of the murder, during the absence of the husband.
Arkansas City Republican, August 8, 1885.
The county commissioners have offered $300 reward for the conviction of the murderer of Mrs. R. H. White at Winfield. The state also offers the same amount.
Now back to Frank Manny with item in Arkansas City newspaper in 1886 and an item in the Daily Calamity Howler, a Winfield newspaper, in 1891.
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