The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-11-04
SAY LOOK HERE!
That Is Present Attitude of
kelly's Defenders.
Now Trying to Find Other Bad
Bond Deals.
SCOTT COUNTY SALE.
Contention That Proves State
Journals COmanche Case.
Conditions Are Quite Different,
However, at Time OF Sale.

The friends of the state school fund
commissioners, who are also the de-
tenders of T. T. Kelly, have started
something on B. P. Waggener and A.
M. Harvey in order to nullify the at
tacks of Harvey and Waggener on the
school fund commission. Incidentally
they have produced some splendid
evidence for the State Journal in the
$4,000 libel suits which Messrs. Bur-
row, Dayhoff and Coleman have
brought against the State Journal
1t is charged against Mr.. Waggener
that in 1892 he sold the state school
fund commissioners $4,000 of Scott
county bonds on which the interest
has not been paid and which were
compromised two years ago. This, as
serts the enemies of Mr.. Waggener
and the friends of the school fund
commissioners, precludes any criticism
by Mr.. Waggener of the Comanche
county bond deal
These critics of Mr.. Waggener as
sert that the Scott county deal was
crime against the state, but the Co
manche county deal was all right. In
the language of the school fund COM
missioners, sit was a splendid invest
ment for the state.''
AS a matter of fact the Scott county
investment was not a good one for the
state, but at the time it was made it
was far ahead of the Comanche coun-
ty investment. Five minutes investi-
cation of the state records shows that.
Here is the standing of Comanche
county at the time of the Comanche
county deal in 1904, compared with
the standing of Scott county at the
time the Scott county bonds We're
purchased from Mr.. Waggener in
1892:
Comanche. Scott.
Amount of purchase. -. 123,000 $4,000
Total Indebtedness .-.-... $4,000 ITS. 600
Rate of interest -......... 4129o SO
Comanche County Got Nothing.
Both sets of bonds had been through
the United States courts and had been
upheld. The present school fund COM.
missioners have argued that because
the Comanche county bonds have been
upheld by the courts they were a safe
Investment. If that is true, why don't
county bonds? They were upheld by
the courts much. more vigorously than
We're the Comanche bonds.
There is this difference in these
bonds, however: the people of CO.
county never got a cent in re-
turn for the bonds that are saddIed
onto them, because they were fraud
ulent in the first place; they were is
sued twelve years before the county
was legally organized, and the people
are held not only for the face of the
original bonds but for the interest
that accumulated on them during those
twelve years at the rate of 10 per cent |
per annum. The people of Comanche
county therefore feel that the debt is
not a moral one. even though the
courts have held that the bonds are
now valid.
What Scott County Got.
The people of Scott county. on the |
other hand, got two lines of railroads |
for their bonds, and although they |
the legality of the bonds that |
were first issued to the railroads, after |
the courts upheld them they were re- |
funded andathere has been no further I
dispute about them. The reason the |
interest has not been kept up on the
Scott county bonds is because tie peo- /
pie felt the burden of taxation so I
heavily that they could not afford to |
pay the taxes. The people of Scott |
are just as honest as the people |
Of Comanche county. The latter did |
not pay interest on their bonds up to |
1898 and the bondholders were COM |
PEELED to bring another suit in the I
courts to compel the collection of the /
interest. Since then it is stated that
L former county clerk of that county
1as been receiving from $1,000 to ST.
zoo from the bondholders to see that
he interest is levied and paid each
year.
Thus it will be seen that at the time
he Scott county bonds were pur-
chased they appeared to be a. far bet
1
county bonds do today. The valuation
by the county clerk was 20
per cent the greater in Scott county,
While the total Indebtedness was only
slightly in excess of that of Comanche
county today, and the rate of interest
IN the Scott county bonds was SO per
cent. greater than on the Comanche
,onds. From this showing alone, with
1ut taking into account the history
back of the bonds, the eNScott county
ponds would have been worth far
more on the market than those of
Comanche county
But the Scott county bonds proved a
poor investment. The people We're will
ng to pay, but they could not do it
md keep up their other expenses, and
when hard times came the interest was
1efaulted-
And in the face Of these facts, which
we're known to Messrs. Burrow, Day
loft and Coleman. they had the eff
'rOntery to secretly put $123,000 of the /
county bonds, refusing them from H.
3. Kelly at per cent and buying them
rom A. A. GODDARD at Az per cent in a
way that allowed Mr. GODDARD to make
Kelly loaned GODDARD s123,000 of the
tate's money in which to carry
through this Infamous deal,
Scott County Loaded Its Bonds.
Now as to Mr.. Waggener's connec-
ion with the Scott county deal: w. E.
sterne told the State Journal Thursday
hat he thought he sold those Scott
county bonds but the records in the
tate house show that SAG, 900 of them
we're purchased from Mr. Waggener.
The State Journal does not know Mr..
side of the story, but as
he records show that the bonds Were
leid by eastern holders at the time
hey were refunded on March Is. 1892
md as it was June, 1892 when Mr..
Naggener sold the $4,000 bonds to the
tate, he seems to have been acting for
-, ~e-E rlevt :