The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-02-04
ANSWER Is FILED
Continued from Fifth Page.)

the same time filed in the name Of the
state a petition for injunction in the
district court and obtained a tempo
rary injunction against said nuisance
Prior TO these proceedings the said
Harris had for some time sold intoxicat-
ing liquors contrary TO law at his said
place Of business. That while said
cases were pending said Harris came
TO respondent and expressed his desire
TO quit selling intoxicating liquors in
said city, and said that If respondent
would dismiss said prosecution against
him he would quit said business, and
pay all costs that had accrued therein
including a reasonable attorney fee
and also consent 10 a perpetual intunc-
ton restraining him from further keep
ing and maintaining said nuisance and
pay all costs incident 10 said injunction
including a reasonable attorneys fec.
To this respondent agreed. Said Harris
thereupon paid the costs IT said Grim
iDal prosecution and IN the injunction
suit, ard paid respondent $500 in part
payment of an attorneys fee agreeing
10 Pay in addition thereto $500 balance
OF the attorneys fee agreed upon Said
Harris thereupon quit selling liquors
al said place and the same is now occu-
pied as a butcher shop, by other parties
and said Harris has not, so far as res
pendent knows. and has reason 10 be-
lieve, since engaged in said business.
Respondent further says that in the
transaction above related with Ernest
Harris he acted without concealment or
any effort ct concealment and in the
conscientious discharge Of his duty 10
the public ard according to the best OF
his judgment as to the best course 10
pursue under the circumstances and
with no other intention 10 violate his
duties either as an attorney at law or
in his Office as assistant attorney gene--
Al and he has always intended az the
proper time to dismiss said criminal
cause against said Harris by the leave
of court upon a full statement of all
the facts in connection herewith. Res
pendent further says that in all his
actions and conduct in the matters
+ ereinbefore related he acted under the
directions and with the knowledge and
approval Of his superior. the attorney
general of Kansas.
Fifth-AS to that part OF the affidavit
and charges on file commencing at the
bottom of page four and following the
statements in regard to the case against
Ernest Harris respondent denies the
same in toto. but at the same time OBJ
jects and excerpts 10 said matter as be-
ing indefinite ard uncertain, and that
before being required 10 answer further
concerning said matters he asks that
the charges Of misconduct therein set
forth be made more definite and certain
so that he may know of what he Is
accused. Respondent further says that
his purpose in his capacity as assistant
attorney general has been at all times
and still is to put a stop to the Illegal
sale of intoxicating liquors with the
least possible expense 10 the county.
That his instructions from the attorney
general were to this effect. That en-
forcement Of the law and not persecu-
ton of individuals was the end 10 be
attained and that when a man charg
ed with selling liquor would agree absO-
lGtely TO quit the business and pay
all c osts with a reasonable attorney
fee the case against him should be
dismissed. This was in conformity
with the judgment Of respondent as 20
what is just and legal as we'll as for
the best interests of the public. Many
persons guilty of violating the prOhi5
TORY law have done so for years past
with the connivance and tacit consent
of public officers, and upon a change OF
pendent proper while pushing the cases
against them with all vigor necessary
to drive them out of business yet when
such parties agreed absolutely to sur
render not to push them to the point
where a trial in the district court would
be necessary with a doubt and uncer-
tainty as to results and with possibil-
ity Of heavy expense. In other words
as above stated his object and that of
the attorney general has been solely 10
secure a fair and just enforcement of
the prohibitory law IN Wichita, and this
was the sole and only motive for set
Ting the cases above named in the
manner above stated. Respondent fur
Their says that he has never received
or accepted a cent of money which &C
Cording to the best OF his judgment as
q lawyer he was not legally and equit-
ably entitled to receive, and in reference
to his conduct herein he invokes the
fullest investigation and the judgment
of the court, and asks TO be discharged
with costs.
G.. L. DOUGLASS,