The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-08-22
as no Henry ALLEN.

4 story. Therefore there are two sides
to the state printer deal story, one side
of which has been related By Cyrus
Leland. According to the story from
Mr.. Leland's point of view-and Mr..
Leland says that he arranged the deal
in the state printer contest of 1903,
when George A. Clark, H. J. Allen,
Arthur Capper and E. w. Hoch were
candidates, 1t became evident that
Hoch would be elected unless Allen
and Clark combined forces. Capper
had withdrawn in favor of Hoch.
Clark could not handle his supporters
and Allen was therefore persuaded to
| withdraw on the condition that Mr..
Clark should divide the profits of the
| office with him, after Clark received a
salary of $4,000 per year. This is the
story as told by Mr.. Leland.
| 1t is recognized, of course, that the
object of making the story public at
this time is to injure Mr.. Allen in his
race for the Republican nomination
for congress in the Second district.
Mr.. Leland has a grudge against Allen.
He told the story to w. r. Stubs. and
Mr.. Stubs urged him to make it pub
lie, which Mr.. Leland has done.
Mr.. Allen is in the east and his YER
sion of the story has not been told. 1t
is therefore best to withhold judgment
until he returns.
But in the meantime some newspa-
pers, most of them outside of the Sec
ond congressional district, have ruled
Mr.. Allen out of the congressional
race. One of them, the Abilene Pc
hector, not only prohibits Mr. Allen
from running for congress in the Sec
ond district. but it charges ]. L. Bris-
tow, who has been in Washington all
this time, with sharing in Mr.. Aliens
profits in the alleged deal.
1t is noticeable that every paper that
is now holding up its hands in holy
horror at the alleged deal less than
year ago was abusing the State Journal
with all the venom and vituperation OF
which it was capable for OBJ
| jecting to the Iooting of the state treas
ury and because it told the story or
the Ubiquitous Comanche county BOND
deal Every one of these papers abused
Governor Bailey because he appointed
state accountant and had the state
treasury investigated. And now they
are ''horrified' because of report that
Allen and Clark combined forces in the
state printer election.
Surprising this story to be true-just
the state was defrauded in any way.
No one alleges that the state was over
charged for the work done. Nobody
stole money from the state treasury,
and no bad bonds were unloaded on the
state school fund. The state laws specify
the prices that shall be paid for work,
and the state printing board decided
what work should be done. This board
was composed of State Treasurer Kelly,
Secretary of State Burrow and Attorney
General GODDARD, and they cut the
amount of work down to the minimum.
The office of state printer is one that
| has been sought solely for the profit
| there was in it. E. w. Hoch desired it
| for that reason and no other. So did
Allen and Clark and Arthur Capper.
All were equally qualified for the office.
! One could have done the work just as
well as the other. Each had his friends
From a business standpoint it was the
same as though a board of directors
were to let the contract for a certain
work at a certain price.
Suppose there are four bidders, each
| qualified to do the work, and each with
his personal friends on the board. One
withdraws in favor of another. The
! other two decide to pool their interests
and divide the profits. Would anyone
| claim that there is anything wrong in
that? And that is just what Clark
and Allen are alleged to have done.
| That is one way of looking at it.
| From another standpoint the deal, if
true was wrong. One cannot place
ones finger upon the special wrong in
| it, except the general specification
that all deals in politics are wrong.
And yet there always have been and
! doubtless always will be deals in poll
tics. 1t may be alleged that Allen and
Clark got more than was a legitimate
profit out of the deal. Yet they got
| Just what the law specified and just
what Hoch or Capper would have
taken had either of them been sue
cessful. Deals of the same character
are made in practically every state and
county convention where there is a
spirited contest between three or more
candidates. Some of them withdraw
in favor of certain Others and there
is usually some consideration for the
! hdrawal-sometime a payment of
money, sometimes a promise of future
support, but nearly always there is
some sort of a consideration.
From the high plane which some of
US feel should govern in political mat
tiers this is wrong and should be elimi-
mated, although it is difficult to point out
in just what respect it is wrong. We
can usually see the wrong more plainly
when the other fellow is successful
All this is on the supposition that Mr..
Leland's story is correct. Mr. Clark is
quoted as denying it, and Mr.. Allen
statement will be awaited with interest
when he returns from the east.
II the meantime it is difficult to see
where anyone who has supported ]. R.
Burton, Tom Kelly, or the perpetrators
of the Comanche county bond deal, or
anyone who upheld the frauds perpetra-
ted in the Republican state and some OF