People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-08-15

W WA NY anu OllHSt hdt-
ters, so that | cannot see, 50 far as the
evidence goes, where the candidacy of
any one cuts any figure in arriving at a
just conclusion, whether the defendant
made such an agreement as under the
evidence and the law he is liable to pun
ishment. If this agreement had any
Significance or was 10 procure voters for
any candidate, it was the Democratic,
and not the Republican candidates. 1t
is nowhere shown that The Standard
urged the election Of any Republican
candidates, or was to do so. but 1t had,
prior to the agreement, urged the Dem
ocrats to vote for the nominees of the
Democratic party. If this was brought
about by reason of the agreement, it
would be violation of the law, but not
otherwise. 1t would be a violation of
the law on the part of the defendant to
enter into that kind Of an agreement,
although The Standard for which he
was to vote was to advocate the same
policy, and was going to pursue that
course during the entire campaign, pro-
viding the defendant entered into the
kind of an agreement charged in the
warrant.
Now, on this point, what it the evil
dence? Frank H. Gilmore, editor, says
that the policy Of the paper before he
was led to believe The Standard was to
have the printing, was to advocate the
voting for the Democratic candidates
and that that would have been the pol
icy Of the paper had he never heard of
any likelihood Of its getting the public
printing and that its policy did remain
the same for the entire time that the
candidates were before the people.
The question is, was there an agree
ment between the defendant and any
person Of such corrupt nature and to
the extent that Carrie Herring, owner
and proprietor of The Standard, would
advocate the election Of the Republican
candidates, and If so, is it necessary to
allege and prove with whom that agree
ment was made, and what the nature
thereof was?
| will say at this point, that were 1t
not for the action and admissions of the
defendant himself, and the testimony
Of John 7. Stewart, as shown by the
evidence, there would not be a particle
of evidence showing any agreement or
understanding whatever. | will also
add, that when we consider these ad-
missions, and this testimony, that there
ought TO be no wonder in the minds of
any one who recognizes the rights of the
public, whose servants the defendant,
the county attorney and all the public
officials are, that this action was brought
in the first instance. Here is the defend.
ant, a public official, giving his silence
to and allowing a defense made In a
civil court against the county on a con-
tract that the answer alleges twas con,
ceived In sin and born In iniquity," OF, ,tC
put 1t more In the language Of the ans
wer, "a contract that was corruptly rem
dered into, and that the defendant was the
chief party to that corruption" and the
verdict of the jury upheld that answer
do not believe, and never have be
lleved, that the evidence warranted tn,
verdict, but 1t is sufficient TO warn thu
county attorney that the public interest
and the public sense of honorable deal
Ing on the part Of public officials de
manded an investigation. Notwith
standing all this, | must deal with thil
defendant and this case as | conceive
the law to be, and the evidence applied
thereto. The law says, "or any person
who shall directly or indirectly give ol
procure to be given, etc. any money, gif
or reward, or any Office, place or employ
ment, or any engagement, contract o.
understanding that the person to whom
etc. -. shall, etc. for the elec
tion Of any person to any public Office
etc"
Now, what was the language of tn
answer In the civil court, and statemen
of counsel for the county in that case
Not that The Standard should work TO
the Republican nominees, but the Dem
ocratic nominees. The same may b
said with reference to all the testimony
Of the editor Of the South Haven New
Era. 1t is true that this course woult
indirectly aid the Republican nominees
but the law refers to the contract o
agreement, either directly or indirectly
and not to the work to be done. TIL
warrant also charges the contract to b
that said paper was to Influence tn
election Of the Republican nominees,
and there 1t stopped. The complain
goes further and states, "by procuring
as many voters as possible to vote 70
the Democratic nominees at said elec
tion. " which in no wise changes the ma
ture Of whatever contract there was B,
support the Democratic candidates
} The authorities, however, are that thi
, case must stand or fall upon the war