The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-01-13
Judge Hazen Decides Inquisi-
tion Measure is Good.
County Attorney Has Right to
Summon Witnesses.
BLOW FOR JOINTISTS.
They Have Bitterly Fought the
Measure.
MI. Thompson Had No Right to
Ignore Summons.

Judge Hazen this morning refused to
allow the application for a writ of
habeas corpus in the case brought by
Mike" Thompson to test the authority
of County Attorney Nichols to act I'M
der the county attorney "inquisition"
law passed by the last legislature. The
court held the law to be constitutional,
and that it was properly passed by the
legislature.
Thompson was subpoenaed to give
evidence in regard to the Harry Croft
road house by County Attorney Nichols.
with several others, under the "inquisi-
ton" law. Thompson refused to appear
and was arrested and fined in the city
court and remanded to Jail until the
fine was paid. He brought habeas
corpus proceedings in the district court
for his release on the ground that the
law was not good In giving his dec1-
sion Judge Hazen said:
THE law in question originated in the
house of representatives, giving county
attorneys authority to summon wit
nesses. The bill as introduced passed
saged to the senate and went to the
second reading; then the judiciary COM
mittee reported a substitute bill and
recommended it's passage. The bill
and substitute passed the senate and
was messaged back to the house. In
stead of using the title of the substitute
bill the title of the original bill was
used The title of the substitute bill
was not considered, but the senate jour
nal shows it was mesSaged back to the
senate from the house under the proper
title, and that it went to the governor
for his signature. The bill was prop
erly passed.
Judge Hazen referred to a similar case
which had been before the supreme
court wherein the decision was made
that as the governor had signed the bill
that it was good
THE court is not ready to say that
the legislature did not pass the bill, "
said Judge Hazen in continuing, but
there were irregularities. Under the
decision of the courts 1 must say that
the journals do not show that the bill
was not properly passed, SO the court
will say that it was passed"
When the law Of 1887 was prepared
for the statutes by the late Judge W. C.
Webb he divided a section as passed by
the legislature and when the legislature
which passed the 'inquisition' law
passed the amendment it was to di-
vision of the section as prepared by
Judge Webb. The attorneys for Thomp-
son claimed that the amendment was
not valid, as it had been passed as an
amendment only to a part of the orig
jnal section as passed by the legislature.
In passing upon that point Judge Hazen
said: 81 think that whatever the legis-
-1ature considers as a section then be-
comes a section. When the legislature
had before it the section 149 made by
Judge Webb the legislature considered
it the section to be amended. I do not
believe that the court will hold that the
legislature must amend the whole Sec
ton. I do not believe it necessary to
amend an entire section. The legisla-
ture could take a subdivision of a Sec
ton and amend it. Therefore the ap-
plication for a writ of habeas corpus
will be refused"
This decision gives the county attor-
new the right to proceed against Illegal
liquor sellers under the inquisition law.
Judge Hazen heretofore held that As
sistant Attorney General Redden could
not imprison or fine persons who re-
fused to recognize his authority to pro-
coed under the law. He did not deny
Judge Redden'S right to issue sub
poenas under that law but that he
could not enforce his orders by punish
ment. That decision has been appealed
from and will be passed on by the SUI
preme court.