The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-10
WILL NOT DOWN.
Fee Buyer Good Refuses to Be
Suppressed.
Mr.. Spencer Says He Has a
Deep Dark Purpose.
SLIP SHOD METHODS.
How the Bills Against the City
Are Audited.
How Names of E. b. Good and
NJ. A. Good Are Used.
SLIP SHOD METHODS.


new SPOT cash deal at the police court
Police Judge Hamilton was banker,
and had authority from the mayor to
cash all chips for witnesses at IS cents
apiece, the full par value. Heretofore,
witnesses have had to wait till the end
of the month for the city to settle up.
1t was intended by the new move to
drive E. B. Good, the curbstone broker
in witness fees, off the floor of the ex-
change-to catch him with heavy line
of goods bought in anticipation of a
raise, and start stampede of the
mar1<st.
Good seems to have weathered the
storm. Instead of being rammed from
the ground and covered up by the ava
lanche of destruction, he appeared in
| police court and proceeded to bid
| against the city. 1t was a hot contest
! between the bulls and bears. Police
Judge Hamilton offered IS cents cash
for fees, and then Good started the
story that Hamilton wouldn't pay till
police court adjourned. and it might
/ be long, long time till that happened.
Some claim that Good even went so far
as to cut out the usual discount for
cash" and paid some of the witnesses
the full market value of their fees, just
to knock Judge Hamilton out of some
business. Good asserts, however, that
he don't intend to pay more than 30
cents, and that if the witnesses want
to discount their fees to him. he will
accommodate them.
However, there is another side to it.
City Attorney Spencer says that Mr.
Good is going to try to make the city
pay $3.50 a day for police court wit
neSSeS. Good told Spencer that his at
torney had advised him he could make
the city pay $3.50, and if the attorney is
right, of course Good can afford to pay
/ 70 cents, or 81, or even $1.25, for wit
ness fees, and still have good margin
of profit. - --..s.
in mind is indicated by the bills which
he has been turning in against the
city. For August he turned in a bill
for $3.50, on the $1-50 day basis, and
the city allowed only $44.S5. For July
he turned in a bill of $190.50, and the
city allowed $9525. In the month of
June, however he made out his bill on
the rs cent basis June just after
the 75-cent ordinance was passed, and
Mr.. Goods attorney had apparently not
discovered any defects in it
The 75-eent ordinance was passed
April 6 and went into effect April A.
1t was drawn in compliance with the
following authority given by the city
shall receive for each days attendance
at court such fee as may be fixed by
ordinance" There seems to be no loop
holes in the ordinance, though Mr.. Good
may have found some. City ordinances
are very much addicted to the loophole
habit
There are some queer things about
the bills which Mr.. E. B. Good presents
to the city. They are all drawn thus:
"City of Topeka to M. A. Good, Dr..
and at the end they are sworn to by E.
B. Good. Each bill is accompanied by
the original assignments made by wit
nesses, and the assignments are all
made to E. B. Good. There is nothing
to show why NJ A. Good has any right
to collect accounts which are assigned
to F.. B. Good, or what authority e.
B. Good has to swear to the correctness
of a bill presented by NJ A. Good.
1t might be stated. incidentally, that
it is f. B. Good who calls at the city
clerks office every month TO get the
money. and on the warrant register ne
signs NJ. A. Goods name, in receipt for
the city's check.
Another peculiar thing was observed
about the voucher for the month of July,
for $3.50. This voucher is endorsed on
the face, Assigned to A. Parker. M A.
Good But the records show that A
Parker did not get the money 1t was
receipted for by f. B. Good, who signed
the name of NJ. A. Good.
All these things may not Indicate any
thing except a very lax and careless way
of conducting the city's business and
looking after it's accounts. 1t certainly
would result in much benefit to the city
if the bills were subjected to more
searching examination. Three members
of the city council are supposed to
audit" all bills every month Only one
of these three members was present
when the August bills were audited. The
auditing committee is inclined to Shout
der the responsibility for bills off on the
heads of the departments. and it usually
happens that if a padded bill can be
given an o. K. by some friendly depart
ment chief. it will be allowed by the
oo11ncilfS auditing committee.