The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-09-08
Attorney General and EX-Offi-
GER at LOggerheads.
Quarrel About Issues In the
Stock Yards Case.
CHARGE OF BAD FAITH
Mr.. Boyle Says He Had the Case
Already Won.
Consent of Mr.. GODDARD Given
For a Revival.

The continuation OF the STOCK ydIuS
litigation is developing quite a contro-
veTsy between Attorney General God
ard and ex-Attorney General L. c
Boyle. Each charges that the other
has acted in bad faith in the case and
the statements which they are making
concerning each other are not alto
gether complimentary.
Mr.. GODDARD says that Mr.. Boyle has
declined to relinQuish possession OF
some valuable papers in the case. MI:
Boyle says that GODDARD was guilty OF
a breach of faith when he consented
to revival of the case in the United
States court at Washington.
The stockholders of the stock yards
company who brought the suit to en-
join the attorney general and prevent
the enforcement of the new law re-
ducing the charges for feed and yard
age at the Kansas City yards made L.
c. Boyle the defendant as he was max
ing a hard fight to secure the enforce
ment of the new law.
The federal court enjo1ned Mr.. Boyle.
In all other phases of the case Mr.
Boyle and David Martin had won for
the state. The injunction run against
Mr.. Boyle only. He claimed that when
he retired from Office the injunction
was dead; the new law was in force
and the contention which the state had
made was sustained in every part1c-
ular.
However, if this were true, Attorney
General GODDARD changed the situation
by cOnSenting to d revival of the case
in his name. This was done by Judge
Valentine who FASTENED to Washing
ton as soon as Mr.. GODDARD had filed his
oath of office and appeared before the
United States supreme court with a
motion for the revival of the case in
the name of the new attorney gen.
eral.
A few days later Mr.. Boyle went to
Washington and argued before the
court the claim that the suit had been
won and since he was going out Of
office the injunction would no longer
run against the enforcement Of the
law.
The court stated to Mr.. Boyle that
his idea, while probably correct, would
not be given consideration, since Mr.
GODDARD had consented to a revival of
the case in his name as attorney gen
eral. Boyle picked up his papers and
left thes court room chagrined and
disappointed. He says of this mat
ter;
In all my life I have never heard of
such a proceeding on the part of a
lawyer. That stock yards case was
won when we went out of Office. The
new law was in force and effect when
the injunction against me expired by
reason of the fact that l went out of
office. Why the attorney general should
seek a revival of a case already won
do not understand. AS the principal
defendant in the case my retirement
from office would have made the issue
dead. The stock yards company appeal
would have been dead and a judgment
would have been entered in the court
of last resort, affirming the judgment
of the lower courts.
This would have been a complete
and permanent victory for the state
bus all this has been bungled by the
revival of the case. It is strange to me
at least, why a man should seek a re-
Vival of a case already WOn.'
BOyle's attitude has aroused Attor-
ney General GODDARD. He admits that
he consented to a revival of the case
DIITnOSR a
ment of the United States supreme
court upon all the points at issue.
Mr.. GODDARD is incensed at Boyle be
cause" as the attorney general ex-
plains it, Boyle has in his possession
a number of important briefs which he
declines to turn over to the state.
These briefs were prepared by Judge
David Martin in the stock yards case.
The state paid for the briefs and they
are therefore the property of the state.
It would seem that the ex-attorney
general is making an effort to embar-
rass the state in the further prosecu-
ton of this case.
Mr.. Boyle has said two or three
times that he would place the briefs
in my possession but he has not done
so. have obtained some of the more
unimpOrtant papers from various
sources but those which are really an
essential and important feature of the
case are in the hands of Boyle who has
failed to turn them over to this de-
partment. The stock yards company
has copies of the briefs but I can not
obtain those. Consequently when Mr.
Boyle declines to furnish me the copies
in his possession he is helping the
stock yards company and not the
state"
Opinion among the lawyers is d.
vided on this proposition. Many think
BOyle's contention that the suit was
won is correct While others say the ac-
ton of Mr.. GODDARD to secure a final dis
position of the whole case was entirely
proper.