The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-09-27

was furnished me that they were being
violated. | do not frequent joints and
saloons 1t is certainly not expected
that the prosecuting attorney should
go around to the places and act as de-
tect1Ve and then go into court and act
as prosecuting witness and county
a thing and no reasonable man expects
It, The charge that have failed to
prosecute the injunctionss is without
foundation, and the records will show
that have secured permanent injunc-
tons in each case.
The law requiring me to keep
record of the fees of my Office has
been repealed, SO the charge that
have failed to keep a record of fees
has no standing in court
Il have not seen the charges, but if
those are the grounds for asking that
1 be ousted 1 feel perfectly secure
Turned States Evidence.
1t is said that some of the Kansas
City, Kas., jointists who feel that the
city administration and county attor-
ney have not given them a square deal
have turned states evidence, and will
testify before the supreme court con-
cerning the details of the bribery
charge. They will also explain how
the license system was managed.
City Counselor McAnany may also
be an important witness. McAnany
came to Topeka a few days ago to
talk to Attorney General Coleman,
and admitted to him that the monthly
fine system was being used regularly
for the purpose of raising much need
ed funds for the city.
The complaint against County At
torney Gibson is most voluminouss
three causes of action being set forth,
covering every fact that could in any
way bear on the case. 1t recites that
he was elected county attorney OF
Wyandotte county in 1904 and that
from the month of January, 1905, up
to the present time he has been guilty
of a failure and neglect in his official
duty in the enforcement of the act
known as the prohibitory law of the
state of Kansas; that since that date
a large number of persons, some $50,
have, in the county and city, been en-
gagged in the willful, open and noto-
rious sale of intoxicating liquors; that
these persons are now keeping in
Kansas City, KaS., open and public
liquor saloons; that this fact is well
known to Prosecuting Attorney Glib
son and that he could by the exercise
of reasonable diligence ascertain the
fact of such violations; that these vio-
latorS of the law pay to the city the
sum of $50 each per month in the
form of a fine or forfeited bail in sim
ulated prosecutions in the police court,
these fines being paid the city for i'm
munity from prosecution for violation
of the prohibitory law.
The information also sets forth that
the fact of such payment of fines and
bail as license tax by the saloonkeep-
erS has been d matter of common
knowledge among the people of the
city. of daily conversation about the
streets and of daily newspaper COM
ment in the public press of Kansas
City, Kan; that a city election was
held, at which the issue was the COL
lection or non-collection of revenue by
the city from the. saloonkeepers, and
that it is a fact we'll known to the
county attorney that the party stand
in 1,of aIa fOt. col
and the collection of fines from the
saloonkeeperS prevailed and the can
fdidates of such party, for the mayor
atty and other city offices, were
the county attorney has utterly failed,
neglected and refused to perform the
duties imposed on him by his office;
that Gibson has occasionally begun
injunction proceedings to prevent the
sale of liquor in Kansas City, Kan,
but has never prosecuted such cases in
good faith; also that at various times
County Prosecutor Gibson caused
complaints to be filed against certain
saloonkeepers, charging, them with
violations of the law. but did the same
corruptIy and not in good faith for the
prosecution of such parties; that he
was corruptly Influenced in his duty as
/ county attorney to protect and shield
the guilty parties.
| The second cause of action charges
! County Attorney Gibson with accept
ing a bribe of $50 each per month
| from every person in Kansas City,
Kan, running saloon, on considera-
/ tion that he fail to prosecute them for
violating the prohibitory law and that
this corrupt agreement has been in
! force uD TO present time, and is still
| in force.
The third cause of action charges Gibson
with a violation of the law in regard to
keeping in his office fee book, in which
should be entered the fees collected or re-
ceived by him, he being authorized to col
| lect fees in cases prosecuted by him in
which the defendant or prosecuting wit
ness was adjudged to pay the costs; that
he has not only not kept such a fee book
but has never accounted to the county
commissioners for such fees collected by
him.
In conclusion the attorney general asks
the court to compel Gibson to show cause
why he should not be found guilty ofthese
charges and if found guilty at once re-
moved from the office and the same de-
clared vacant.
In Mayor Roses case the information re-
cites the same facts in regard to his Off
cial position, election, etc, also that he
has failed to perform his duty and CO.
operate with the other officers of Kansas
City. KAN, to license. and authorize the
keeping and maintaining of saloons. The
complaint concluded with the request that
Mayor Rose be required to answer to
the court for his alleged violations of the
prohibitory law and that in case he fails
to prove his innocence he be ousted from
Office at once.
The city of Kansas City, Kan, as mu-
nicipality, is made party to the custer
action, the complaint being set forth that
as city it is exercising unlawful acts in
the licensing of saloons and that the su-
preme court is asked to compel it to show
by what warrant of authority it does the
acts and things set out in the complaint
and that the city be forever ousted from
the exercise of said corrupt and unlicensed
lief may be given against these unlawful
acts as the court shall deem just and
| right.
--e-