The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-09-30
STILL FUSSING.
Joint Fight in Kansas City Kan,
Grows Bitter.
Ex-Sheriff of Wyandotte County
Tells of Graft.
TH0CE CT DAVMENTc
THOSE So PAYMENTS.
Declares He Has a Receipt Given
"JOintist.''
Mr.. Hale Intimates That Water
man Is Grating.

Kansas City, kan, Sept. 30.-Harry
A. MendenhalI, ex-sIeriff of Wyan-
| dotte county, said last night that dur
ing the campaign year ago, in which
| he opposed the denomination of James
$. Gibson, county attorney, he had
receipt signed by a RosedaIe Joint"
keeper, Mace by name, which read,
received for monthly assessment, S."
and was signed by C. S. Griffith as
agent for M. H. McHale. who was i'll
at the time. MendenhaH said that
McHale's name appeared on the re-
ceipt The ex-sheriff also said that he
used the receipt openly in the cam
paign and showed it to several per-
sons Mendenhall was in the sheriff's
Office several years and probably
knows as much of the inside affairs of
the county as any man in Kansas City,
Kan. He said:
while I was sheriff 1 had a hun
dred Joint keepers, suppose, call
me up and ask me if they should give
up the money every month. 1 told
them that they were fools to do it and
that it was just like holding up a man
in dark alley and taking his money
| All the Joints had to pay SIS a month
10 collector except those represented
by the Liberal league, whose officers
collected the money from its members
and saw that it reached the proper
place"
Protection Paid For.
The Liberal league in an organization
OF saloon keepers which was active in
| opposing saloon closing movements
during Mayor Gi1bert's administration.
1t had a large membership in Armour
dale. According to ex-Sheriff Menden-
nail each member of the league paid IS
a month for the same source as other
saloon men paid collector. The league
has been inactive for some time, but is
now said to be gathering its strength to
fight the present crusade.
| c. F. HutcIings, attorney for Mavor
| William w. Rose of Kansas City, Kan.
and E. S. McAnany, city counselor Of
| that city. yesterday received copies of
the petitioners III the custer proceedings
man, attorney general, in the Kansas
| supreme court Tuesday afternoon. Mr..
McAnany said that there was nothing
in the petition which had not been COW
cred by the newspaper articles. He said
that he did not yet know what action
| would be taken. Mr.. Hutchings said
last night that he had not had time to
read the Retition. John A. Hale attor-
ney for J. S. Gibson. county attorney,
said that he would not receive copy
of the charges against Mr.. Gibson un-
| til TODAY.
Waterman Insincere.
Mr.. Hale, in an interview yesterday
| afternoon, questioned the sincerity of
! NJ "A. w dI6IIDdIl, VINO mas taken DdfE
in the crusade against the saloons, and
whose attorney, W. H. MECHANISM, filed
four injunction proceedings against
four saloons Monday afternoon. MT.
Hale said:
! Every saloon in this town has been
enjoined. The injunctions against some
of the saloons would reach to the top
of the buildings if piled up. These in
| functions are perpetual and in full force
and effect. If any person wants to close
these places all he will have to do will
be to furnish evidence that the injunc-
tions are being violated and they will
have to close. Instead of doing that,
Mr.. Waterman goes to work and files
new injunctions. Why? Because there
| is $50 attorney fee to be had in each
of the new cases. while there isn't a
cent in the old cases. The county is
put to the expense of having these suits
brought. They say that the county at
torney has been grating. What is
Waterman doing but grafting?''
To the interview of Mr.. Hale Mr.. Wa
! terman re3lied as follows:
lit is not our intention to file injunc-
| tons against saloons against which in
functions are already in force. 1t has
been arranged to have u man go
through the records of the district and
common pleas courts and ascertain how
many injunctions are in existence. Then
we will exercise our right under the law
to put an attorney in the county attor-
ney's office to force these cases to their
ultimate conclusion. It is not true that
the cost Of these cases viii have to be
borne by the county. The cost is u lien
against the property"