The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-12-07
HE Is DUMFUZZLED
BIRDS ACQUITTAL AT TOPEKA PUTS
GOVERNOR MORRILL, IN A BOX.

Jury of Twelve Men SAY He is Not Guilty of
MaIfeasance in Office and it is Now a
Question with the State House How to
Eet Rid of Him-If He had Been De-
cIared Guilty it Would have Been an
Easy Matter, but lie was Not and the
Whole Thug Is Mixed Up in Terrible
shape.
Topeka. Dec. 6.-(SpeciaL)-The ac-
nuital of Labor Commissioner Bird
here today by twelve good men and
true Of Shawnee county leads to an
Dther peculiar predicament- Bird is
still Labor Commissioner, although the
man who appointed him, Governor Nor
rill, doesn't want him to be. And
Bird is likely to remain labor commits
Bioner in spite Of Governor Morrill,.
Morrill, fired Labor Commissioner
Bird. Bird refused to go, claiming
that he had done nothing wrong. Then
he was charged with malfeasance in
office and tried. Had he been found
guilty it migir not have been hard
matter TO Gust him from Office. But he
has been acquitted and-that's another
story entirely
The trial was unusual in several par
ticulars- Only three witnesses were
called upon to testify. including the
defendant, and no testimony at all was
offered in rebuttal so that the matter
narrowed down 10 a ques ton of YER
acity between the two interested par
ties, shaded somewhat by some fine
legal points.
The criminal action against Mr.. Bird
was brought by the Attorney General
on account Of the method adopted by
the labor commissioner for governing
the payment Of his assistants About
March %, soon after Mr.. Birds initia-
ton into the duties of his position. Mr.,
Speer was appointed chief clerk Of the
office and everything seemed harmoni-
Gus until along in June when il devel-
oped that Mr.. Speer, though nominally
holding a $1,000 position. was receiving
payment at the rate of $500. Mr.. Speer
claimed that he was compelled TO pay
this tribute to his superior in order TO
hold his position. He soon after re-
ceived his discharge.
Acting under the instruction Of Gov
ernOr Morrill,, Attorney General Dawes,
brought suit in the district court
against Mr.. Bird for malfeasance in
Office, and the case came up for trial
yesterday. The state was represented
by Assistant Attorney General 4. A.
GODDARD and Assistant County Attorney
Arthur McCabe. while the defense was
conducted by Waters & Waters. The
jury was empanelled and other prelini-
naries disposed Of in the forenoon.
About 2 o'clock Mr.. Speer took the
witness tand and remained target
h. y~frr
an hour. Mr.. Speer in the rela ton of
his story stated that he had been COM
PEELED 10 give the money to Mr.. Bird
in order to hold his position. He had
agreed TO the arT'an cement but only
under protest He had each month upon
The receipt Of his pay turned over a
portion of IT to his chief, except in June
the last month that he was employed.
Tor that month he received the entire
amount. Becoming indignant he had
consequence lost his position Mr..
Speer acknowledged that he had been
employed for the three months only.
hut said he had believed that if his
work was satisfactory he would he re-
tained. After the publication Of the
story, Mr.. Bird ordered him 10 leave.
He refused to do so unless he should
receive a proper discharge in writing.
which he did and left on June %. He
believed that the money went to Mr.
Bird personally.
After the testimony Of this witness
the state rested. making his evidence
the basis Of IT'S case. Mr.. Waters for
the defense made a, demurrer stating
that for two reasons the action should
not go TO the jury. In the first place
he said. all of the counts against Mr..
Bird stated that money had been ex-
tOrted from Mr.. Speer by threats of
loss OF Office should he not pay up. In
no case, however, he said. had any
threats been proven. The second rea-
son he cited was THAT no proof had been
presented that the Governor had re-
Guested the attorney general to bring
this action and without his request Il
could only he brought by the county
attorney The court decided that the
second point would not prove an impor-
tant one in this case and instructed Mr.
GODDARD 10 answer the first only. Mr..
GODDARD argued that although it had
not been specifically stated that Mr..
Speer would lose his place if he with
held the tribute money, this had been
perfectly understood. Judge Hazen
overruled the demurrer. and the de-
fense placed on the stand Miss Bertha
Hayes Of Kansas City, Kan. who was
al iilt tl4ice vain Mr. SDeer.
Miss Hayes said that she had agreed (
10 allow poption of her salary to be Z
withheld each month for the uses of
the Office and that this amount had
been taken out as long as Mr.. Speer
was there. She had heard a conv ersa- /
Sicn between the labor commissioner /
and chief clerk when the tribute pay /.
ment was agreed upon. but had noticed 1
no signs Of heat and supposed il had
been peaceful. She believed the money /
extracted from the salaries by the com Z
missioner was used for the good of the I
Office.
Mr. Bird was the last witness called. /
He Acknowledged that he had held back .
the money in both instances but said 4
that he had clearly stated 10 the clerks /
that this would he done before they /
accepted their positions. and that they i
contracted only for the amount they
received. He had used the money that 4
he saved. he said. for the benefit Of /
his department.as there was no money 4
for its support when he took the Office 1
and he was compelled 10 resort 10 every
possible means. Some questions from
Nr. GODDARD brought out the fact that I
he put the money in his pocket each /
time. but he stated that he kept &C
count Of Il and used il for the state
Mr. GODDARD raised the point that even
II Mr.. Bird had used the money as he
claimed 10 have done Il would not
clear HIM When money was specifi-
caily appropriated TO pay one officer"
he said. 1T could not he switched off 4
In some other direction"
Mr.. Bird retirement from the stand
closed the testimony as neither side
offered any testimony in rebuttal.
]
Thsn There Arc Others.