People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-09-26

The term warrants, as used in this
act, shall be understood to include
all orders of any kind or description
authorized by law to be drawn on
public treasures for money pay
ments."
Section two of that act reads as fol-
lows:
Sec. 3 No warrants shall be issued except |
under due authority as provided by law;
and no warrants shall be issued or authOriZ-
ed by any board OF county commissioners. |
. except on audited account duly |
itemiZed in writing and verified by affidavit |
setting forth that the same is just and cor
rect and remains due and unpaid.
There can no sortOf pretense that
these provisions of the law were not
Aagrantly violated. Nor are these
the only laws that were violated bv
the board of county commissioners in
paying the S65 of witness fees to H.
L. Woods on April s, 1895. Para
graph 1857 of the General Statutes
provides that no county board, in
allowing costs in criminal cases, to be
paid by the county, shall issue war
rants for witnesses fees to persons
other than those entitled thereto"
Now on April s, 1895, there we're no
witness fees or mileage due from
sumner county to anybody. The
case of Hickman is a good illustra-
tiOn, Woods bill shows that on
April 6, 1895, he paid E. L. Williams
$50 for Hickman as witness against
Talbot. The case against Talbot was
set for trial on April s, 1895. Rick
man did not arrive in Wellington IN.
til April Is, 1895, as is shown by the
district clerks records. When he
got here it was found that he would
make an excellent witness for the
defense but mighty bad one for the
state. So he was taken to the dis
trict clerks Office where he made
a claim for one days attendance as a
witness for the state and for 270
miles travel, aggregating $3.50. He
was then hustled out of town for fear
the defense would get hold of him
and use him as witness. This is
one example Of the manner in which
Mr.. Woods reduced the expenses of
this trial. Had Hickman been sub
poenaed after he arrived at Yelling
ton, which was not done, he would
have been entitled to Sl.50 but no
more. AS it was he was not entitled
to a penny. And if he is TO be believ-
ed, he never got a cent either. He
has written two letters here since, in
which heinquires when his fees will
be allowed by the county and makes
the positive statement that he has
never got cent out of the cash that
was promised him for attending the
Talbot trial.
What would have been the result
had the laws been obeyed aud follow
ed in this Talbot case? Ed Rath-
burn, Dan Jones, Dick Wilson, Bill
FOssett, DR.. W. A. Noble and S. S.
Richmond are among the witnesses
who lived outside of the state who
came only because they were paid to
do so. Had they not been paid, they
would not have attended the trial.
Without them, the case would never
have been tried and in that event
Sumner county taxpayers would have
been saved at least $1,000. We do
not believe any better Illustration
could be found of the truth that it is
always best to obey the laws as we
find them.
We do not mean by what we have
said above to charge that the county
commissioners have wilfully violated
the laws. The extent of their Offend
ing may be that they blindly followed
the advice of the county attorney not
really knowing what the law was.
And the county attorney, thinking
he was a public prosecutor, instead of
a prosecutor, may have allowed his
zeal to convict in his first important
case to Overshadow that profound
knowledge of the law for which he is
so Justly noted. But these considera-
tions do not avoid the fact that hun
dreds Of dollars of the cOunty's money
have been unlawfully paid out in this
Talbot case and that the unlawful
spending Of these hundreds has led to
the spending of thousands more in
the same case.
The impression is quite prevalent
in Sumner county that the public
funds are often squandered unlaw-
fully. Such illegal expenditures as
those mentioned above justify these
impressions to great extent. They
are indefensible. 1t matters not who
has done likewise in the past or
sanctions such business today.
Neither party fealty nor personal
friendship should prevent the expos
ure OF such practices and so far as the
MAIL is concerned, they will not.