The Saline County journal. [volume] (Salina, Kan.) 1871-1893, 1872-10-31
The Humphrey Testimony.

SALINA. Oct II. is.2.
ED.TOEs JoURNAL: Mr. Nohier. in defend
ing himself in a late is-Ie Of the Herqi brings IN
only one witness. and that is james Humph-
rey. q rGiL'0zG attorney. NJ. Humphrey OWN
statement shows that he and Mr. MoliIer agreed
in the construction OF the law a applied lately
in these land tax suits. and herein lies MIR
Mothers chief ofIense. Did Mr.. Moi,ler ever
take Mr.. Humphreys construction of law be-
fore: Answer winged wings, Has Tot the
Supreme Court been setting aside railway al
torneys' opinions for the last two years: How
Z Is il then that these gentlemen. who have 80
long disagreed on the question Of the right Of
the state 10 tax railway lands now come to
grther latter the right 10 tax has been .iii rired
and agree that the collection of the same. and
the issuing of Tux deeds. shall be postponed :
thereby neuiraliziny the effect of the Supreme
Court decision. and making three yyar> in all
that this thing bas been running along Ii was
= 4 big thing on ice for somebody but the
ice broke.
II would be useless for me to cite all the Law
ofthe Medes and Persians 10 show that when
We have Supreme Court decision in our fay
or. We must send it back TO see ii the court has
erred. Nothing can stop the order of su-
p-eIne Court but the court itself. or the party
in whose behalf the decision is mad. or war.
or something of that kind. Ii required til.
sent of the parties in our land tax cases. and
the parties" consented.
Tine county clerk was cited Ia appear around
as defendant in these cases. ON srr;aip day.
He appeared. There was kind OF csslmy stIll-
ness brooding over tie scene at that time. and
the next thing ne discovered. the eases had
been postponed. Although tie records show
the cases were pos. t.oned By consent of parties.
the county clerk did not consent 10 IL and he
2 feffyi a for al
Here l. how l.> Mr.. Humphrey says 1.-THE
Two cases were called on the docket by Capt.
Mohler:-
>-ATE on KANSAS
iheFsby certify tat IN ctses 40 SO z.i csl whs--
N ne h.asis Pac,e Railway is plaintiff and Dsrid
juIv a I,;s sod n ~ 50, =. i.r iae "a o.
eioT- TIA; day. - appears Epon the a. this Of
Witness my hand and The sal af sal. nj. -,
IL ! day OF October. 4 D, i>s.-
by L E ElLRUE, p-,laiy Cicrk 'e'>
lit was the county attorneys place To an
swrr.l
Becollect that Mr.. Humphrey is arguing h.s
own case. iu>tifying MIR. Nohlcr. justiiies
i,ih.eii a. a-tcrssy for tie railroad cou1o4a- III
.N> ! ~dineient viHtlieafion. confess | can't
see through i yet.
Mr. Humphrey states thar .b--, 49,, -. -,
reAi Heiay IN case being DELAYED tx months
- a 4 We Were green That Is rhe way
,asy cave been taking all the time. Isay that
II li aicslon cases had been. triei and the
iluicIyas REUSED the railway .rs,!s eca.d
al have been decided away III the ,,xa. hsd NJ,
been paid e--fire this tim. Bsf = es,.ri go
consented NOT q sseus tAes,-
sum the whole thing up in this way Tn.
supreme Court decided that railway faods arr
taxa.'ie ere,Pon The Railway company ar-
ply for an injunction. aud the iinal hearing ~
the application for il WAS lby coasea, OF No.
Mother and Humphrey postponed nh next
Court, thereby actually giving the railway eo,,,-
pany another cnzsr~ io show that rh~ir j.n.I<