The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-07
TO c. C. COLEMAN:

action involving the purchase of $123, 00C
in Comancne county bonds by the state
school commission of which you are a
minority member, the other two mem
bers being J. r. Burrow and /. L. Day
hoff.
If you were in bad company before in
the purchase of these bonds, you are
now in worse with It. T. Kelly's proven
connection with the transaction
1t is doubtless the province of the
governor to direct you as attorney gen
eral, toward any action the state may
deem proper in connection with the SEN
sational incident fully described on the
first page of this paper
You have Joined with the other two
members of the state school commits
sion in bringing a. suit against me as
editor and proprietor of the Topeka
State Journal on account of an article
in this paper in which the state school
fund commissioners were severely crit
icised for their official action.
You were criticised for sanctioning the
purchase which it is presumed you did.
We criticised you for buying Az per
cent bonds when per cent bonds of
the same kind, issued by the same
county, and with twenty years to run,
were offered to your commission.
We criticised you as one of the com
mission for buying the bonds at all
when they were tainted with fraud,
as the records of your Office will show.
We criticised you as purchaser of
the bonds for the sacred school fund
as the bonds apparently were un-
salable anywhere, except to the
school fund, and to that fund only by
a juggling of valuations and rulings
We criticised you in this transac-
ton because on the assumption that
the per cent. Comanche county
bonds had a valuation of 80 cents, the
Az per cent bonds would only have a
valuation of about 81 cents. because
their earning capacity was rs per cent.
less than the 6 per cents, the only diff
ference between the 6 per cent. bonds
and the Il per cent. bonds apparent
Iy being the per cent bonds had
about twenty years to run and the
u per cent bonds about thirty years
Some bond purchasers ascribe lit
tie additional value to bonds having
a little longer time to run; to some
purchasers, as you know, athirty-year
bond would have no value over a
twenty-year bond.
We have criticised you for an ex-
traordinary opinion giving new in
terpretation of the law which says the
school fund commission shall not pur-
chase bonds from a county whose
bonded Indebtedness is more than 10
per cent of the valuation of the tax
able property in the county
If you favored the purchase of these
bonds, knowing that they. had been
offered to the state school fund COM
mission as per cent bonds, 1T would
still have required another member of
the board beside yourself to act before
a purchase could have been made. You
are only one-third of the board and
we could not condemn your action
alone because you were and are
minority of the three
We criticised I. L. Dayhoff, state su-
perintendent of public instruction, for
his part in the transaction
We criticised ]. r. Burrow, secre-
tary of state, for his part in the deal,
as a member of your state school fund
commission and for his action as
member of the state board of equali-
cation; for without the increase by
the state board of the valuation of
the property in Comanche county your
opinion would have been valueless; for
the valuation as returned by the as
SCISSORS of Comanche county made con-
of the purchase of its bonds
absolutely impossible, except under
your own new ruling.
Today we present you with a new
phase of the case wherein the state
treasurer not only furnishes the money
to pay the note of your friend and
predecessor, Mr.. GODDARD, who gave his
note for three days in order to buy
but obs hat
Mr.. ]. r. Burrow, who joins with you
in suing me, constitutes with Mr.. T.
T. Kelly, state treasurer, a majority
of the board of equalization which
raised the valuation of the property
in Comanche county to a sufficient
point to barely get within the Is per
cent rule, which rule, as stated above |
shut out the Comanche county bonds |
from your fund, except Mr.. Kelly or |
Mr.. Burrow, or both, raised the valu- |
alton.
Me. Coleman, do you not see how the |
three joint cases of yourself, Mr. Bur |
row and Mr.. Dayhof are absolutely |
linked and tied together, and that to de-
tend myself I must insist that these |
cases be tried together before one jury, |
put with separate verdicts, a stipulation |
as suggested by Judge Hazen, and as |
signed by me?
You know from an emphatic state |
nent by the court that by consolidating |
he cases as suggested is the only |
method by which your case, Mr.. Bur |
rows case and Mr. Dayhoff's case can
all three be tried before election.
You signed with your other two as
sociates on the school commission the |
emphatic statement:
demand immediate trial. to waive al for |
maIities causing delay and to make any |
agreement necessary to bring a trial /
without delay.
~ r. BURROW.
Il. L. DAYHOFF
&C. C. COLEMAN