Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1894-11-02
Some Facts for the Consideration
of "Republican Voter"

an article by some person unknown
to me, purporting to SET forth rea-
sons why the undersigned should
not be reelected to the Office OF
county attorney of Anderson county.
| have never thought that you
would willingly do me an injustice,
even in the heat of political cam
paign, and so think | have right
to an opportunity to place the fol
lowing before your readers in reply
to the communication referred to
above:
So far as | am able to understand
the reason why it is claimed that
should not be reelected is that l
have collected or am asking fees for
work not done at all or done by
other attorneys. This is claimed to
be shown by certain voucher for
$2OS allowed by the board ofcounty
commissioners at the October meet
ing for services rendered in certain
cases where banks are undertaking
to prevent the collection OF taxes by
the sheriff of this county according
to law The cases were commenced
in the district court OF Anderson
county, July %, 1894, and are six
in number, involving the tax OF the
First National Bank, Anderson Ceun-
tv National Bank. Bank of Garrett,
PEOPLES Bank of Colony, Bank OF
Greeley, and Bank of Westphalla'
An application for an injunction
to restrain the sheriff from collect
ing these taxes, amounting to be.
tween fifteen and twenty thousand
dollars. was first made to Probate
Judge Miller and refused. Applica.
tion was then made to Judge Ben.
son and by him refused From his
decision an appeal was taken to the
supreme court of the state and an
application for temporary injunc-
ton made to Judge Johnson, OF the
supreme court, August llth, and a
stay granted to September 4th, when
n further hearing was had and the
s,ay continued to October 4th
Upon the hearing at this time the
stay was continued to December 4th
and the cases advanced to hearing
at that time, except as to the Ander'
son County National Bank, in which
case the stay was denied.
These are the cases in which the
charges covered by the order men
tio ned were made, $5S being for ex-
penses paid an d the balance for SER
vices rendered. This work was no
part of my duty az county attorney
and the county commissioners had
perfect freedom to employ any other
attorney they preferred at any price
they could agree on. No other at
torney was ever employed or paid
nv the commissioners or assisted me
in any way in these cases. On the
other hand, have been opposed at
every hearing of these cases by
Messrs. Rose & Roberts, OF Huichln-
son. a firm which makes corporation
cases a speciality; johnson II john
son. of this city, who appear Tor the
Bank of Garnett only; aud IN addiil
on to th,s ON the last argument oi
the case at Topeka. by Judge Valen
tine. for many years n judge OF the
supreme court of this state. These
cases are upon other and dlilere"t
grounds than the ones with which
Mr.. Bowman aud Mr.. Scho"n"vcr
were connected; the matters at issue
in those cases having been decided
in favor of the county by the Su
preme court at its April sitting
Mr.. Schoonover and myself appear
ing for the county These cases
are, moreover, in violation "i good
faith aud specific agreement by
the banks Interested To pay their
taxes when the questions in the for
mer cases were decided in favor "i
the county by the supreme court.
The Importance which the banks
attach To- these cases can b. learned