The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-03-07
new ANSWER IS FILED.
Infamous Comanche County Bond
Deal Is Revived.

An amended answer was filed in the
Shawnee county district court this
morning in the damage suits of J. R.
BurroW, secretary of state, /. l.. Day
hoff, state superintendent, and G. c.
Coleman, state attorney general, by
Frank p. MacLennan, proprietor of the
State Journal the defendant through
his attorneys, b. 2. Waggener, w. z.
Hackney, and Waters & Waters.
The answer reviews the case in ten
concise pages, telling of the Comanche
county bond transaction which was ex-
posed by the defendant through his
newspaper, the State Journal. A re-
Spouse is made to each plaintiff In the
one to Secretary of State Burrow, the
this way: THAT the plaintiff as secre-
tary of the state Of Kansas, and while
acting in his official capacity, as a
member of the board of commissioners
of the management of the state per-
manent school funds, voted to purchase
1923, 600 of the refunding bonds of Co
manche county through the interven-
ton OF A. A. GODDARD. middleman and
bond broker. for a sum of $1,000 more
than their actual market price; that the
plaintiff knew and reasonably ought to
have made inquiry and found out that
the said midd1eman was demanding for
said bonds sum largely in excess of
their actual market price and took no
step whatever to inform himself; that
he carelessly and negligently failed to
so acquaint himself with such price and
assumed TO rely wholly ana SOiSly upon
the statements of said middleman,
whose purpose was to advance and
puff their value beyond their actual
market price; that the defendant knew
and had reasonable opportunity 10
know that the purchase of said bonds
was only accomplished after the state
board of equalization had raised the
valuation for state purposes in said
county, and then making Illegal and
unauthorized use of such valuation to
purchase the same. and in which the
plaintiff participated; and that said ar
ticle was published by defendant in
good faith, without malice in said State
Journal of which defendant was then
sole owner, publisher and proprietor for
the purpose of giving the voters Of
said state knowledge of the foregoing
Matters
The charges are then detailed sep
IarateIy In conclusion the answer
SAYS: THAT the said officers were all
candidates for reelection to their re-
spective offices at the November cleo
ton in 1904. and as such they pre-
sumably challenged the attention of
the people of the state of Kansas to
the manner in which they discharged
their respective offices in the past, and
the defendant in good faith and with
out malice in furtherance of such,
published the foregoing facts, in or
der that the said school. fund COM
rnissioners have the benefit thereof
and the people might know in what
selves in the discharge of their duties
as such. If their conduct, as dis
closed in the above statement Of
facts, was injurious to them in their
caDaeity as state officers seeking re-
election to the offices they now hold,
the fault is with them and not with
the defendant. IT, on the other hand,
their conduct in the premises was
Iaudatory, then they have no right to
complain because of the publication
of said facts. Their acts as public Of
ficials seeking reelection were proper
subjects for investigation and COM
mendation or criticism. and said arti-
Gle was privileged and defendant
was justified in publishing II II
nendation, the have no cause of
quarrel with the defendant for pub
fishing the facts. If subject to crit
cisrn. then it was the duty of the de-
fandant as such publisher, to state
the facts. for which he is guilty Of no
wrong"