The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1901-12-08

Mr.. jenkins slip in this instance to lack
of judgment generally or to downright
and wilful dishonesty. Neither is true.
Generally his career affords an emphatic
contradiction Of the one, and the facts in
the case will not tolerate the latter con-
| clusion. For. If bis purpose had been to
secure a financial advantage by a pre-
mediated act Of dishonesty, nothing could
have been easier than to cover the matter
up beyond all danger of discovery. The
whole affair simply discloses a Gu
rious phase OF moral conception that is
not, at all uncommon among much wiser
men than Mr.. jenkins. 1t is really a moral
eccentrieity. Jenkins is of a peculiar and
eccentric makeup. His intentions are up
right. he believes in himself implicitly
and cannot understand why there should
be two opinions on this proposition. In
the sanitarium transaction, he saw very
plainly, what seemed TO be a good thing
But there was no special reason for be-
lieving that it was wicked because it was
substantially in line with the contract
which had heretofore existed between the
territory and the owner of the sanitarium
property. 1t did not occur TO Mr.. Jen-
kins that the territory was to suffer or
the inmates Of the asylum TO be short pot
ted either in their rations or otherwise
for the purpose of adding profit TO the
stockholders. The property was esti-
mated 10 be worth fully fifty thousand
dollars with this contracts said to have
cost more-and the stockholders were buy
ing it for half that amount. Here was
a plain and direct profit to start with of
100 per cent. and 1t was calculated that
the business OF the sanitarium would pay
a handsome dividend on the face value Of
the stock. The sanitarium is a private en-
terprise, the property does not belong to
the state as is the case usually, and it
is valuable only so long as it can be prof
itably used for sanitarium purposes. Tt
was built IN the first place, and the
contract was awarded to Dr.. Threadgin,
not only for the purpose of caring for'the
unfortunate. but for the special purpose
OF making money for its owner. Based
upon experience, 1t was DENIED TO be
better and less expensive for the terri
tory TO make this contract with Or.
Threadgill, than to send our insane into
distant states TO be cared for. BY this
arrangement the territory would make
money" as well as the owner of the San
itarium It was a money making
scheme all around. Or. Threadgi1 never
posed as a phranthropist. Now, this is
the way Mr.. Jenkins regarded this whole
matter. He saw a chance as the saying
is. to kin two birds with one stone He
explained that he first desired TO have
the chief ownership Of the asylum lodged
in the hands of men in whose integrity
he had implicit confidence. c. S. Jobes.
of Kansas, 'ex-bank examiner of that
state, who stands high, not only as a
public official, but as a business man.
was such a man as Mr.. Jenkins desired
TO have connected with the ownership
and management of the Sanitarium. In
addition to this fact Mr.. Jenkins was
under obligations to Mr.. Jobes for past
favors Of a substantial character, and
was DESTROYS of discharging this obliga-
ton so far as he could. Here was a
chance, as before said, to XIII two birds
with one stone. Mr.. Jenkins did not re-
alize that he himself was the third bird
in the transaction, whose political and
Official death would present one of the
most melancholy tragedies in the history
of the country Hes could not see any
moral difference between the appointment
of a capable man to profitable office in
settlement of an obligation, and giving
him a profitable Job of wholly differ
ent character for the same purpose.
But there is a wide difference, and one
which the law has always recognized and
insisted upon. Statutes have been en-
acted in every state and territory of
the Union which forbid public officers
from profting, directly or indirectly, from
contracts over which they exercise con
troll. The absence of such statutes would
open the doors to fraud, speculation and
jobbery, and the outrages even now per-
petrated upon the public by subtle eva
sions Of the law. would be increased a
hundred fold. Mr.. Jenkins did not see
any wrong in the Sanitarium transaction.
and he does not now. His own conscience
being clear of wrongful purpose, he does
not see how anyone could be so blind as
to not understand matters as he did. He
feels that he is the innocent victim of an
unmerciful judgment. We pity him and
his family from the bottom of our heart.