The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-01-04
up TO THE COURT
Question OF Governors HAHN
tenamce Submitted to Court.
Attorneys For Kelly Treat Case
With FIiPpancy.
MR.. DOSTER'S LOGIC.
Says New Residence Provided
More Duties.
Decision In the Case Expected
Next Week.

damned by epigram. The only hope
or the defendant in this case is to
damn this cause by illusions to beef
steak and bread and butter.''
The above was the opening remark
made by ex-Chief Justice Frank Dos
ter in presenting to the supreme court
Tuesday afternoon the governors side
in the state grocery bill controversy.
Both sides filed briefs in the case,
and the oral argument carried on by
N. H. Loomis and Frank Doster for
Governor Bailey and ]. W. Gleed and
F. Dumont Smith for Treasurer Kelly,
was decidedly spirited. The court
kept interrupting with various ques-
tions which added to the gaiety OF the
occasion, and made the event take on
some of the flavor of a political meet
ing in the heat of a campaign.
The chief argument On behalf of
Treasurer Kelly was this: THE con
stitution limits the compensation to be
received by the governor. If the
state gives the governor $4,000 out of
which he can pay all his grocery and
meat bills it is increasing his COM
pensation.''
To this the attorneys for Governor
Bailey replied: 1.-The fact that the
state owns an executive mansion has
imposed new duty on the governor;
the duty of dispensing official hospi-
F LAuIy- A governor cannot De expected
to assume such new duties unless the
expense Is borne by the state, and
that expense is what the legislature
intended this $4,000 should pay
court will decide the case within a
week. The question is looked upon
as one which ought to be settled be-
fore the new administration takes
one of the funny things about the
attitude of State Treasurer Kelly IN
this case is the gushing protestation OF
personal esteem for Governor Bailey
Kelly's brief says:
THE governors personal integrity
is not for a moment questioned by US
or anybody else, so far as We have
heard. We think that the result viii
his duty and a public service In re-
fusing to countersign the warrants,
and that Governor Bailey has done
his duty and q public service in bring
ing a suit to test the question. There
is no personal or political question IN
volved; no occasion for sympathy for
either side"
N. H Loonis opened the argument
on behalf of Governor Bailey He said
in part: ITO keep up a mansion of this
kind servants are necessary You cant
expect the governor and his wife TO 40
the housework tend the furnace and
wash the windows. In order to keep
servants they must be fed OF course
arrangements might be made to nave
these servants come IN curing Tie teAy
and do the work, and take their meals
down town at some of the ne1ghDorS,
but it is not the customary way to do
1t is absolutely impossible to differ
entiate as the defendants claim should
be done.
The state intended, when it bought
that mansion, that the governor should
entertain; that it should be the social
center of the state; a place where dis
tingllished guests might be entertain /
ed a place where the state officials
might meet the people 1t was left TO
the discretion of the governor how
much of this should be done, but he
was given the money with which to DO /
the work. This court is not going to I
inquire into whether or not the governor |
wisely exercised his discretion
Suppose the governor had rooms at |
the Copeland?" suggested Justice W. |
r. johnson, could the state appropri-
ate money for the maintenance OF those
Il don't think So" said Mr. Loomis
Then" said Justice Cunningham, IF
the state rented a house for the COVER
nor, it could not appropriate money for
its maintenance"
'.WeII, it might be able to under GER
tain conditions
at would call to your attention that |
the legislature uses the word main
tain and maintenance in connection
with the state institutions to mean the
furnishing of all kinds of supplies The
legislature has thus given certain
construction of the meaning of that
word, and in appropriating money for
the maintenance of the governors
own construction of the word main
tenance."
the governor $1,000 for the purchase
Of provisions" said Justice Smith,
would that have been an increase in
mo. I think not" said Mr.. Loomis.
ssThen the legislature could vote to
4,1c a of n nd
a year for our living expenses, if it
so desired ~
Certainly it could. under certain
conditions" replied Mr.. Loomis. "If
City to hold a session, the state would
be authorized to pay the railroad
fare and the hotel bills of the court.
''Then it is your theory" persisted
Justice Smith, that the governors
servants have the right to eat pro-
visions purchased by the state and
the governor himself must buy his
own provisions ~
It think the governor can eat from
the common supply purchased from
the state funds. I don't think the
for what the governor eats, a separate
pantry for what the servants eat and
a separate pantry for what the guests
eat The governor is himself a SER
want of the people. put there to super
wise the maintenance of the executive
mansion. The wonder is that the
governor could be so liberal with his
hospitality on the appropriation al
lowed him by the state"
J. W. Gleed followed Mr.. Loomis
Mr. Gleed is attorney for Treasurer
Kelly He said in part:
There are only two questions in
volved in this case; first, did the leg
islature intend to appropriate money
for the governors daily food? Sec-li