The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-11-14

The story is that after the passage of
Weaver's bill Campbell and Brown
drew sight draft for $100 on Weaver.
and stated to Weaver that they had
been compelled to Use money to get his
bill through. Weaver refused to honor
the draft and Campbell is said to have
made personal trip to Oswego to get
him to pay it, but failed.
j. X. Burrow, the present secretary OF
state, and George A. Clark his pre-
decessor, are endorsed on the indictment
as witnesses for the state in the case.
A dispatch from Muscogee, where
Campbell now has his headquarters as a
special government land inspector saws
that Campbell admits having asked for
the money, but asserts that it was done
for other parties The Muscogee dis
patch is as follows:
ID. f. Campbell special land in
spector under the Indian agent. who
was indicted by the Oswego grand jury,
left tonight for Fort Scott to face the
indictment against him. Campbell made
statement before he left He said
money as charged in the Indictment but
he asked for it for a friend. He did it
as friendly act and that at no time
did he expect to get any part of the
money. The money was to pay for a
celebration that was pulled off after the
passage of a certain measure by the
house of the Kansas legislature, ne as
serted. l. N. Try, who was a member
of the same legislature. and George
Findlay a Kansas politician, and now
federal appointee at this place, says
that Campbells statement is correct
and that he has been made the victim
of his friends"
I. n. Ury, who is named in this dis
patch, has not been a member of the
legislature since 1897, and was never in
the house when Campbell was. During
the last session he was in the Indian
Territory and not at the legislature at
all. George Findlay was in Topeka, but
why, it is asked, should he know any
thing about this Labette county mat
ter?
1t is asserted that this is only a sim
gle instance Of many in which county
officers were held up to secure the
passage of bills increasing their fees
and salaries. This can be easily be-
lieved, because towards the close of the
session both houses were flooded with
several hundred local fee and salary
bills. Sixteen were introduced in the
house alone in just a few minutes one
morning. AS the State Journal pointed
out al the time, these bills were fire.
Quently passed without the knowledge
of the people in the counties interested.
For instance, the fees of some of the Of
fcers of Shawnee county, right hers
where the legislature was sitting, were
but the bills were so framed that in
the rush of legislative business only
the people interested in them realized
their full force.
sas county wanted his salary increased:
his representative or state senator owed
him an obligation and he got one of
them to introduce a bill in his behalf
Neither the county commissioners Of
the county nor any one else in the
county, except the officer securing the
raise and his friends, may have known
anything about it. The representative
who introduced the bill assured the fee
and salary committee that the bill was
all right, and of course the man in
whose interest the bill was introduced
had somebody working for 1t. The peo-
pie of the county could not oppose it,
because they knew nothing of it, and
1t is probable that some of the bills
became laws without the knowledge OF
even the county commissioners of the
counties which had to pay the bills un-
til the bills were presented by the fav-
ored officials and the special law cited
as authority for them.
The fact that the last legislature was
flooded with measures of this character
right at the close of the session opeEed
all kinds of avenues for graft just as in
the I-abette county case where the Off .
cial refused to be held up. 1t is evi-
dent from the statements of all con-
cerned that money was used in the La
bette county case, and the question
now arises who got it2