The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-09-30
Rebellious City Officials May Be
Called to Account.
Old Supreme Court Order Con-
corning Joints,
CAN NOT BE LICENSED
Mayor and All the Rest in Con
tempt of Court.
Only Necessary to Bring in
Obstreperous Officials.

Attorney General C. c. Coleman, I'M
der a decision of the supreme court rem
dered in March, 1897 has authority to
proceed against the city officials of
Ieavenworth and Topeka. and h;sul
them W before the supreme court for
punishment for contempt
When S. 3. Bradford was attorney
general. he brought suit against Leav-
enworth and Tooeka to olst their right
to license joints. The sui, was in the
nature of quo warranto proceeding, to
GUST the cities from the exercise of such
authority.
w. G. Hook. then CITY attorney of
Leavenworth, and now Judge of the
United States circuit court, represented
LeaYenworth in the fight. Bradford
won a decisive victory, and the supreme
court issued an iron clad order.
For some years this order. was obey
ed in both Leavenworth and Topeka.
Through the neglect OF attorney gen
erals, the enforcement of the order was
gradually overlooked, and Leavenworth
drifted back into the license system.
Now all that remains is Tor Attorney.
General Coleman to haul thu city off
GERS up and show to the supreme court
that the order has been violated. Pun
is1ment for contempt is certain to fol-
low.
The following is the decision in the
I.eavenworth case in 26th Kansas re-
ports:
The state of Kansas ex rel S. B. Brad
ford, attorney general, VS.. the city OF
LeayenWorth.
Original proceedings in quo warranto:
Action brought in this court Septcm-
Der q, 1885, by the state, on the relation
of the attorney general, against the
city of Leavenworth. to forever Dust
said city from exercising or attempting
to exercise the power TO authorize or
license the sale os intoxicating liquors
therein. For answer to plaintiffs petit
ton, the defendant filed a general de-
NAL. The opinion herein was filed at
the March, 1887, session of the court.
S. B. Bradford, attorney general, for
plaintiff.
William c. Hook. city attorney, for
defendant.
Per curiam-It was decided III The
state VS.. the city Of Topeka, 30 Kas e5S
that cities in this state have 10 power
to license or impose license tax on
the business Of selling Intoxicating
liquors, contrary tc the ntovisions of
the constitution and statute; and that
if city assumes such unlawful cor
porate power it NAV ba ousted from
the exercise thereof By proceedings in
the nature of quo warf4Lto. Therefore
this case is whether the city IF Leayen-
worth has attempted II authorize or
license the sale c. Intoxicating liquors.
This is a question % fact for our de-
termination from ;has evidence intro
duced. An examination Of the evidence
satisfies us that although the city of
IeayenWorth has rot by any written or
printed license expressly authorized the
sale of intoxicating liuuOra it has ef-
fectually done so hg the action of its
officers. The shifts and subterfuges
adopted for the purpose are even more
culpable and indesensible than if the
officials had authorize l, in writing the
sale of intoXica ting liquors No Circuit
ty oS action. no indire sfic or othe:
evasion of this matter can possibly eX-
cuse Le7venworth city ." render the
illegal and wrongful ACES of its officials
harmless and innocent Uhe state ex rel
vs. the city of Topeka, 81 Kas. 452).
Judgment will be rendered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant
as prayed for in plaintiffs petition
The case against the city of Topeka
was fled by A. H. Vance, when he
was county attorney of Shawnee coun-
~. That was in 1884, two years before
the Leavenworth case.
The Injunction against the city of
Topeka was as follows:
Thereupon it is ordered and adj
judged by the court that the city of
Topeka do not, in any manner, inter
NEEDLE or concern itself in or about
liquors or the keeping or maintaining
of places for the sale thereof within
said city; nor with imposing. collecting
or receiving any license tax upon or
from the business of Selling intoxicat-
ing liquors, nor keeping nor maintains
ing places for the sale thereof within
said city; but that the said city of To-
peza, its officers, agents. servants and
attorneys, be and they are hereby alb
solutely prejudiced and forever for
hidden from exercising either or any of
the said corporate powers or fran
ehises of licensing the sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors or the keeping or maintain
ing place for the sale thereof, or of i'm
posing or collecting any license tax
upon or from the business of selling in
keeping or maintaining places for the
sale or intoxicating liquor within said
city and that said city of Topeka be
and the same is hereby forever. ouste6
from exercising or claiming the right
to exercise either of said corporate
powers or franchises.
Attorney for Labette County.
What may result in the appointment
of an assistant attorney general to en-
force the Drohibitory law in L4abettt
Hoch and Attorney General Coleman
yesterday by P. T. Foley Of Parsons
Neither Mr.. Hoch nor Mr.. coleman are
in the city. and the documents will b'
laid before them when they return.
Mr.. Foley had a letter written to tn,
Parsons Commercial club by the Kan
sas City house of the Val Blatz Brew
ing company, which gives away the en-