The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-24

You told the state Journal reporter
to go TO Mr.. Dayhons office to get IN
formation
The state Journal had been making
/ a fight on the ticket, on which had
place, and I thought It had better ges
some Of its information some place le-
sides in my office"
SO you told your clerk 10 give no
more Information about school fund
/ transactions, but to send the reporters
to the place where such buslntss orig
I inated7,'
Yes. that's about It"
This was done because of the COM
plain made by state OFFICERS about in
formation being given out in your OF
We'll. there were no direct complaints
but heard some rumors to that effect-''
Mr. Wells than produced the original
proceedings from Comanche county
! commissioners relating t. the issue
of eomanehe county bonds This con
/ Guided Mr.. Wells testimony, and court
adjourned for lunch.
This Afternoons Session.
James Nation. assistant state au-
ditor, was called as a witness He was
examined by F. L. Williams.
Did you ever say to anyone that
! II the Comanche county bond regis
tration we're checked up to you. it
I couldn't get past you2"
Il don't remember Of making such
a statement
MT. NdIlOn was questioned concern
| ing the increase in the valuation OF
Comanche county by the board of
\ equalization. He gave the valua-
tions fixed for the past ten years. lie
also stated the assessment per acre
as fixed by the board was as follows:
/ Comanche, $1.35; Clark. $1-25; Kio-
wa, s1.z5; Barber, $3.50.
On cross examination by MI Wag-
gener it was brought out that Co
manche is a grazing county, while the
THE 1903 valuation would not per
nit the purchase of these bonds.
would it?''
81 think not
How much increase would be
necessary?
About $4,000"
And it was increased just that
amount?"
Yes. sir
What valuation was customarily
/ bon ds2p
'sThe valuation made by the county.
That is what I always did,
{ Were any bonds except the Conan
! che county bonds ever purchased on
the state board valuations
mo, sir
Did you give any instructions not
to give. out information to the news
papers?"
mo. sir"
was any complaint made -
Mr. Burrow complained to Mr.. Cole
and myself about information being
given out"
Did you talk with General Coleman
about the basis of valuation %
Yes; no definite conclusion was
reached. asked him for an opinion
did he give it?"
st think not"
ibid you tell him you would not
register those bonds without his opin-
/ ion2"
81 don't think So"
Mr. Williams on redirect examinA-
4 ton said
Did not Mr.. Burrow object to in
/ formation obtained in your office be-
cause it was Incorrect
NO. sir. There was nothing incor-
rect, so far as I know"
Mr.. GODDARD Recalled.
The plaintiff then recalled A A God
ard. Mr.. GODDARD was not in the court
r. ON and business had to be suspend
ed to await his arrival.
Mr. GODDARD was asked whether there
was any other person besides County
Attorney Rich who got money. Mr..
GODDARD said there were none.
why did you refuse to give Mr.
Rieh's manner was asked Mr.. GODDARD.
tOut of consideration for Mr.. Rich"
why, he hadn't done anything wrong,
had hep"
mo. I think not. But I thought he
would not like to get mixed up in this
When Mr. GODDARD finished his testi-
mony. Mr.. Hessin on behalf of the
plaintiff said:
Your honor. that Is our case
Demurrer Is Filed.
Mr.. Waggener then filed a demurrer
to the evidence submitted by the
/ plaintiff.
Mr.. Waggener urged that under
! decision of the Kansas supreme court,
/ that the demurrer should be sustained
] ~ IA I{@c Ton,
was privileged and no malice was
/ shown.
ssIf it should be shown said Mr..
Waggener, that there was a condition
of malice shown by previous actions
of the defendant, then possibly there
might be ground to claim malice. But
no evidence has been introduced to
show such a condition. What extracts
! have been read from the State Jour
nal. subsequent to the alleged libel are
simply calling upon a state officer to
do his duty.
Moreover We claim that the evidence
in this case has shown that the state
ments in the article complained of ara
true"
Mr.. Waggener then attacked the rul-
ing under which the school fund commits
sioners had used the valuation of the
| board of equalization as basis for.
such a ruling was contrary to law
THE members of the school fund
commissioners got together and agreed
that they would buy s123 900 worth of
bonds contrary to law. When two or
more combine to do an unlawful act. it
Is a conspiracy.
Il will say that these gentlemen are
guilty of a conspiracy. viii go fur
Their, and say that these gentlemen
under the law are guilty of a criminal
conspiracy, and would be prosecuted
il we had an attorney general.
'sAnd If this board bought bonds
worth $123.000 contrary to law, was
not the state treasury looted in that
amount?
eff three officers shall get together
and do that contrary to law. is it not
proper for a public journal to call the
81 In 81 hli, 70, Z, q.