The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-03


answer to each case; the amount each
asks is identically the same; the de-
fendant has the same identical attor-
neys.
The State Journal made it's accusa-
tions against the school fund commits
sioners; it could not charge any one
of those commissioners with doing this
act alone because each was powerless
to do the act alone. The charges made
in the State Journal were against their
acts as school fund commissioners. 1t
would take at least two of them, that
is, a majority, to make the purchase
of the Comanche county school bonds,
which purchase was the basis of this
papers charges for which the suits
have been brought
Had the proposition of the attorneys
for the school fund commissioners
been acceded to this morning it would
then and there have positively pre-
vented the hearing before election of
the case of Mr.. J. R. Burrow and
Mr.. I. L. Dayhoff, who constitute a
majority of said board of school fund
commissioners. 1t would have pre-
vented the State Journal from intro
ducing testimony which all know must
be essential in covering a case deal
ing with the school fund commission
ers and not necessarily with each in
dividual member of the board in every
particular phase OF the case.
From the bench this morning came
the assurance that the court evidently
regarded the matter as one of grave
and state importance and one which, if
possible. should be tried before election.
After conveying this idea to the attor-
the court room, the judge was equally
emphatic that ne could not take up the
time of his court by trying three of
these cases before election, but stated
clearly that if it was the desire to try
the three cases they must be consoli-
dated and brought as one before the
same jury and with three separate ver-
diets. This was the stipulation agreed
to by Mr.. MacLennan.
1t might be added in this connection
that the cases are so absolutely inter
locked together in the prosecution and
the defense that many of the witnesses
are sure to be the same, that the only
common sense view would be to try the
cases together and save the county ex-
pense and economise the time of the
court. All three cases consolidated can
be tried about as quickly and with prac-
tically one-third of the expense which
would result if one case should be tried
before election and the other two after
election.
The reader will kindly also observe
that the editor of this paper is waiv-
ing all of his rights that any part of
the three cases be tried at the next
term of court, the regular time when
such case would legally come up. and
is the only party to the case who asks
that the whole business be cleaned up
right now in the court, that the voters
may have the testimony to aid them
in their case, or that the defendants
may each and all have what is al
legged to be desired, a quick trial be-
fore election; that to Mr.. Burrow and
to Mr.. Dayhoff, as well as the possible
chance to Mr.. Coleman, be given the
benefit of the testimony in time to
help their election, if such testimony
should so help, which the -Messrs. Day.
hoff and Burrow would have the voter
understand.
The reader will also observe that the
editor of this paper is the only party
who has asked that a specific and defin-
ite date be set for trial, namely, Mon
day, October 10, or any date thereafter
that will suit the convenience of all.