The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-12-07
THEY DON'T CARE
Governor and Attorney General
Not Alarmed by Threats.
no Law Under Which They
Could BE Ousted From Office.
MAY TRY TO IMPEACH.
Wichita People Say They Have
Evidence Against Hoch.
Claim He Promised to Connive
at Violation Of Law.
Can Produce Witnesses to
Agreement, They Say.
MAY TRY TO IMPEACH.

I'm not bothering my head by even
thinking about it, said Governor f.
". Hoch today.
II have not a word to say in regard
to this matter except that they can fire
away at me whenever they get ready,
said G. c. Coleman, the attorney gen
e4al
These were their replies and all that
they would say in response to queries
concerning their attitude about the
plans which are forming in Wichita,
according to stories emanatlng from
that place, to bring suits to oust them
from office for their failure TO ENFORCE
the prohibitory law of the state Thls
is a retaliatory scheme on the part OF
the Wichitans for the suit which the
attorney general has filed to Oust Find
lay Ross, from the Office Of mayor OF
Wichita. because of his failure TO en-
force the prOhibitory law in that city
and his connivance with its violation
In this connection one thing Is Ger
tain, however, and that Is that neither
the governor or the attorney genera
can be OuSted from office through lhe
means of suits similar 10 the one
brought with success by MT Coleman
against former Mayor Rose OF Kansas
City. Kan, and James Gibson, the lot
mer county attorney Of Wyandotte
county. and the similar ones he has nled
against Mayor Ross and the mayors o1
other cities. There is nothing IN the
prohibitory law which specifically places
its enforcement on the governor ana
the attorney general. OF course under
their Oaths Of office they are required
to see to the enforcement OF all the laws
of the state and the only way they
could be ousted from office would be by
Impeachment proceedings for aaifessance
which would have to originate IN ana
be determined by the state legislature
They cannot be removed from of1ce. as
stated through suits brought in the SUI
prene court in the same manner as
those which have been brought by the
attorney general against dellnaushl
mayors.
A glance at the section of the. pro-
hibitory law which provides penalties
for its nonenfcrcement on public otfi-
cials shows that the governor and inc
attorney general are not included in the
list This section reads.
ct shall be the duty Of all EherIns, 4
deputy sheriffs, Constables, mayors,
1narshals, police judges and police ot1-
GERS of any city or town having notlce
or knowledge of any violation of the
provisions of this act to notify the
county attorney of the fact of such viO-
lation, and furnish him with the names
of any witnesses within his knowledge
by whom such violation can be proven
If any such officers shall fail to comply
with the provisions Of this section, he
shall upon conviction be fined in any
sum, not less than one hundred nor
more than five hundred dollars: and
such conviction shall be a forfeiture OF
the Office held by such person, ana Lne /
court before whom such conviction Is
had shall, in addition to the imposition
of the fine aforesaid. order and adJudge
the forfeiture of his said office For a
failure or neglect in the enforcement
Of this act, any of the city or county
officers herein referred to may be re-
moved by civil action. II
1t was under the last sentence OF
this section that Mr.. Coleman brought
the quo warranto suits against Rose
and Gibson, and the similar ones
against Mayor Ross Of Wlchlta and
rsftf faf
now pending in the supreme court
and to which none of the defendants
have as yet filed any answers They
have until December 90 to do so.
Legal lights around the state house
insisted today that these sorts Of suits
could not be brought under the pro-
hibltory or any other law against Gov.
TFoch and Mr. Coleman There was
onfv one way to remove them from 4
ofrfcs and that was by Impeachment. /
It would hardly pay, and would hard |
" he possible to bring an Impeachment /
slrfe aRainst Mr.. Coleman as he is to re- !
Hochfs. case it is different and a Wich- |
fta man who was in town today said I
fhat the people of that city would see 4
that the proper proceedings we've
brought in an effort to oust him from I
office In fact this man went so far /
pa ia saw that an Impeachment reSo-
luton against Governor Hoch would
be presented during the first week Of
the legislative session ana pressed to a 4
Of some sort.
The grounds on which this proceed !
ing will be based are that the COVER I
nor and the attorney general have not +
oulv condoned the violations Of the +
prohibitory law in Wichita and other
nIaces but that they have actually +
been parties to the violations in that 4
thev have conspired to that end with 1
certain politicians. In this conspir- 4
mr1y. which, it is said. is to be charged \
. arainst the governor, he is said to /
bav-e made pledges that under certain /
conditions he would not take notice I
~ the violations Of the prohibitory |
law IN wichita The Wichitan, who /
was here today. said that a banker 4
and two prominent business men Of
wichita we're willing to take the I
stand and swear that the governor
bad told them prior to election that
ne would not interfere with the way /
ere Ifouor question was handled by /
wichita unless there was some un-
v,s1Iaf demand from the people Of that
section Tor the strict enforcement of
= sf.hese men claim that the suit
brought by the attorney general with
81 ne has stated. the knowledge of
F4och. is a violation of the
Governors pledge and that the gov
error IS as open to censure for the
violations Of the prohibitory law in
vvsc7fta AZ any local official.