The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-05-10
LOCK HIM UP"
I. E. Stephens Vicious At
tack Upon Mayor Parker.
Says He Should Be Behind Bars
" With Other Criminals.
SENSATIONAL ADDRESS
Bitterly Arraigns AtchisOn,
Wichita and LeaYenwOrth.
Gives Certain Figures About
These Places.
SENSATIONAL ADDRESS

Mayor Albert Parker OF Topeka was
severely abused by T. E. Stephens,
former secretary of the Kansas state
Temperance union, in a paper which he
read before the delegates to the con-
vention at the Auditorium late Friday
afternoon. on the subject of the license
system of governing joints and sa-
looms
In fact a more Incorporate statement
from a temperance man could hardly
be framed.
Secretary Stephens paper was highly
sensational in point of details which ne
gave as the result of observa tions
carried out by himself in the cities of
Atchison. LeavenworIh, Wichita,
Springfield and Decatur. Illinois, Des
Moines. Lincoln, Warrensburg, Mo,
Kansas City, Denver and Los Angeles.
Mr.. Stephens in his attack on Mayor
Parker declared it as his opinion that
Mr. Parker should be indicted and
placed behind prison bars, because he
has not done certain things which Mr.
stephens believes he should do about the
joints in Topeka. Mr.. Stephens said:
WHAT STEPHENS SAID.
Some five or six months ago tie
writer of this paper sent out the fol-
lowing inquiries to each of the 1O5 coun-
ty attorneys in the state.
/ Do you find the prohibitory law
more difficult of enforcement than other
criminal laws?
3 Do you think it is more difficult of
enforcement than high license law
would be2
g. Do you think its strict enforcement
materially reduces other crimes, as is
sometimes claimed, or is it otherwise
4. Do you think its strict enforcement
saving or an expense to the taxpay-
ers of the county2
points wherein it can be advantageously
amended2
The writer asks only for frank and
unbiased answers Your letter will not
be given out for publication, but only
J the general results of the investigation .
The object of this letter was to Sc
| cure the law enforcement viewpoint
not OF the people, but of those officials
who more than any other are charged
with the enforcement of the law
out of the lo5 county attorneys writ
ten to, 76, or about three-fourths of the
WhoIe number, answered; and their re-
/ plies, which have never yet been given
! to the public, were eye-openers in more
respects than one. Many of the at
| torneys answered at great length Civ
| ing detailed reasons for their respective
/ opinions.
In reply to the first question. so of the
rs declared that the prohibitory law is
more dIfncult of enforcement than are
| other criminal laws. Answering the
second question, Al of the rs expressed
! the opinion that it is more difficult of
] enforcement than a high license law
would be. Replying to the third uues-
| ton, 81 of the rs asserted that its strict
! enforcement very materially reduces
| other crimes. In response to the fourth
/ question 3S or Just One-half of the T6.
! declared its rigid enforcement to result
/ in a saving to the taxpayers. 81 be-
/ heved it to be an expense and Z We're
noncommittal- AS to the fifth question,
! relative to amendments, II had none to
| offer, Is believed that the law should be
! strengthened, and only Z out of 76 or
| less than IL per cent, favored it's re-
/ peal OF these Z, 2 We're for a state dis
/ pensary law, and favored high license.
! In other words, while Al of these rs
| county attorneys expressed a belief thar
a high license law would be more easily
enforced than prohibition (and this
without further information. would
seem to US extremely discouraging), yet
! by reason of the reduction of other
crimes and the consequent saving to
taxpayers (and this is where the en-
| couraging part comes i'm only of
J these Al were ready to express their
preference for license system.
But the reasons which these gave, to-
| gether with the reason given by the Al
for believing that a license law would
| be more easily enforced than p1~ohibi-
| tion, led to a determination on the part
of the speaker to make an extended in
| vestigation in considerable nun Der
| of license cities to discover at first hand,
how we'll founded were these reasons.
Summarized, and given as nearly as
possible in their own language, the prin-
| cipal Of these reasons were as follows
1. The liquor traffic is a necessary
evil, and might as well be made to pay
| a revenue as not.
2. The licensed saloon, by reason OF
being compelled to pay a revenue, would
| desire monopoly of the business OF
/ selling liquor and would therefore assist
to keep out the joints and boOtleggeTs.
8. The great majority of citizens and
% he,T
allow the sale of intoxicants by any per
son or persons who were attempting to
avoid the paying of a license. The pay
ment of the license would be an in
dueement to the citizens generally, and
( to the taxpayers in particular, to de-
mand and to assist in a strict enforce
ment of license law. Thus salOonists
and taxpayers would join hands in the
effort to enforce the law. and no one
would seriously oppose its enforcement
4. The revenue would reduce taxa
ton, and thereby would help to build
up the material interests of the city.
1t seems almost incredible that in an
enlightened commonwealth such as
Kansas, arguments of this kind should
be used to bolster up a license syste n,
MAKES INVESTIGATIONS
During the past few months it has
been my privilege to make, by cores
pondence and by personal visitation. a
careful study of the practical workings
of license in some y cities ranging in
size from 600 to $4,000 people. and scat
| tered throughout Illinois Missouri Ne
braska and Kansas (for even in Kansas
10 the shame of the state be it said
the license system is not unknown)
The arguments referred to did not
seem to me to be true, even in theory
but I disarmed myself as far as posi-
1 bic of such prejudices as I might have
/ and started in to make an impartial
study of actual conditions.
In all these state there are stringent
f-r1