The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1885-10-01
DOES PEoH1BIr1oN oPPEEsA.

Editor EmporiA Daily News:
There is one provision Of section 10 of
the prohlbitoFy lay e. amended this
year which even the most enthusiast
tic prohibItlonist, if he be 9 thoughtful
man, must admit to be grossly improper.
1t is that portion Of the section which
reads ss follows: 1.-THE county attorney
shall be allowed Zee Of $25 upon each
count, upon which the defendant shall
be convicted. and the same shall be
taxed as costs in the case, but the coun-
ty shall in no case be liable therefor. ("
1t will, I think, be generally admitted
that it should not be the object of the
state to convict an alleged criminal ct
all hazards, but merely 50 vigorously 70
prosecute him that the truth will be
made apparent, and to secure his con
Viction, If he be guilty, and his acquittal,
If he be innocent. This u cer-
| tainly as far as the PHI
mary canons of morality, decencY
and common sense will permit the state
to go. Were It otherwise, q great com.
monwealth would prostitute its dignity,
and lower itself to the level Of mere
bloodhound. Ifthis view of the masteE
be correct, it Is difficult to hnd terms
strong enough to condemn the action Of
the legislature in appearing 10
deliberately offer bribe 70
every. county attorney in Kan
sas to exceed his official duty In all
liquor prosecutions, and instead of de-
voting his energies to elicit the truth q
direct them to but one object, viz: secur-
ing the conviction of the accused upon
as many counts as possible, and in case
the defendant wishes to appeal, TO strain
every technichality te prevent his doing
go. A striking illustration of the injury
which may be done possibly innocent
person has been recently afforded
by the outcome of liquor trial in an
adjoining county. A young man opened
a store at H certain place for the sale ol
a beverage known as phoenix" The
manufacturer of the beverage claims
that 1t is a non-IntOxicant. Many per-
sons who use it claim the same thing
and it has never been been pretended By
any one that theEYOung man above al.
luded to in acting upon that suppOsition
was not in good faith. or that he sold
other intoxicating liquors. A prosecu-
ton was commenced against the retailer
of "phoenlx" by a private individual
who employed private attorney, with.
out the consent or even knowledge Of
the county attorney. The defendant was
tried, and with the avowed put-
pose OF having the ques.
ton of the intoxicating qualities
of phoenix tested in the district couri
refused To call any witnesses for the de.
tense, and allowed judgment of guilty
to be entered up against him, as he in
tended to take an appeal. Now mark
where the sos a count exercised Its &c
teriOrating effect. Up to the cOnvicting
of the accused the county attorney re.
pudiated any connection with the prose.
cutiOn, stated that 1t had been Instituted
without his consent, and against his
wishes, and that he would leave the re-
spoDsibility entirely with the justice
Immediately, however, upon the judge
convictIng on four counts the county az
torney comes forward and claims the feea
amounting to $1025O. and when in con
sequence of blunder for which the de-
PENDANT was in nOwIse responsible, the
appeal bond was rendered a few hours
after the time fixed by law for such ten
dering, viz: twenty four hours after the
rendition of the judgement, the county at
torney refuses to waive his strict technic-
al rights. and the convicted person will
have to remain IN jail for thirty days al
least, and if he cannot pay $516.5O fines
and costs he will be Imprisoned for life.