The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1897-07-23
AT TO THE DUTY OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY.
c. F. SCOTT, Esq,

the County Attorney, regarding his
official duty and indirectly charging
neglect of duty in not enforcing the
prohibitOry law. There may be some
force to your argument, but there is
TWO sides TO this question. The
County Attorney no doubt feels it his
duty las think he shOuld) to save
as much expense to the county and
make as little trouble to it's citizens as
possible. Whenever he feels satisfied
he can do so and iDjure no one by
such action. The court record will
show a saving OF many hundred
dollars that former county attorneys
have caused by fruitless attempts to
enforce the law referred to above
and the tax payers and voters OF this
county will endorse his actions and
that the records of our court will show
quite saving to the tax payers by
the policy he has pursued. did not
vote for him but l think l would If q
candidate again. for the very reason
| that you censure him, hence "great
minds will differ" The fact is as l
think you will admit, the law has
proved a failure and if the people of
| this State could have chance to vote
Oh IL again III NY IuNsLnO "ON
wipe it out and give us high license
law and one that would be enforced.
Experience has always shown in this
free Republic that it is hardly posi-
BILE to enforce q law obnoxious to a
majority of the people. My Judgment
is we are as peaceful and law abiding
in our little city as any in the county
and all we ask is to be let alone so
long as we remain so and not get up
agitation that may be otherwise.
Very truly,
c. n. PRATT.
The foregoing letter from the mayor
of Humboldt applauding and defend
ing the County Attorney for neglect
ing to enforce the prohibitOry law is
certainly sufficient admission that
he is not doing his duty; and as that
was the charge the REGISTER made
against him there remains nothing for
us to say in this connection except to
thank Mr.. Pratt for coming to our
support.
AS to the financial part of Mr..
Pratt's argument, sufficient reply
seems to be that the cities in which
no attempt has ever been made to
enforce the law and where it's violation
has for years been a source of revenue,
are in worse financial condition than
the cities which have enforced the
law and derived no revenue from the
traffic. For proof of this compare the
finances of Wichita and LeayenwOrth
with those of Topeka and Lawrence.
AS to the right, moral or legal, of
the county attorney to refuse to do his
duty, we are content to submit the
following extract from an opinion of
the Supreme Court of Kansas, (see
92nd Kansas page 14) written by Chief
Justice Horton and cOncurred in by
all the Court.
A county attorney, before entering
upon the duties of his office must take
and subscribe an oath that "he will
support the constitution of the state OF
Kannas and faithfully discharge the
duties of his Office" After the ut
terance of this oath, be cannot sit
down with folded hands and arms,
and refuse to perform the duties inn
posed upon him, solely upon the
ground that the sentiment of the
community or county in which he
resides is in opposition to the enforce
ment of the criminal laws of the
| State. Such action upon his part
would tend to increase lawlessness.
! Under such a doctrine the more law
less the community. the less the
criminal prosecutions. Such action
would be temptation for malefactors
to create sentiment against the crlml-
nal laws, and to a great degree the
law loving and law abiding citizens
would be at the mercy of the vicious
aud criminal classes. The State owes
the duty to its citizens to protect
them in the full enjoyment of all
their rights aud if the lawless element
of any community or county happens,
for the time being, to be in the major
| ity, the orderly, peaceable and quiet
citizens ought not to be subjected to
their domination. The laws of the
State ought not to be suspended at
the will of any class, much less OF
class who f1agrantly avow their deter
mination to defy law. This attorney
within his county, to certain extent,
is a representative of the State. He
is to prosecute in his county for the
State. He is the officer upon whom
the State relies for the prosecution OF
all criminal offences within his juris-
dictiOn. If he fails or refuses to act,
the law is voiceless and powerless.
1t is paralyzed. 1t protects no one
needing protection; it Furnishes no one
deserving punishment. If a county
attorney may wilfully refuse to act in
one particular class of criminal of
lenses on account of the opposition to
be expected from the sentiment of the
community in which he resides, he
may refuse for like cause. to act in all
classes of criminal offenses. Thus il
he has the discretion to say he will
not attempt TO enforce the prohibitOry
law in his county, he has also the
discretion to refuse to enforce the
statute relating TO murder, larceny
forgery, and other crimes. 1t cannot