The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-07-30


tior1 to the article above quoted, ana
he said: ''That he had never inform
ed me or anyone else that the stoch
had been sold for any more thah $oO
a share I told him that there was
evidently a hole somewhere through
U-hich the $500 had slipped ana
that By a little investigation and re
search I thought we would be aple TO
ana il. Mr. O'Ne1 wanted to know
If T considered there was graft in con-
naction with this transaction and l IN
formed him THAT it looked very
much that way to me- He asked me
why 1 wanted 70 hldhe d ny 49, ST
this transaction? told MN,
thought I had just reasons inasmucn
as he had authorized me to go on ana
Investigate this matter and pay my
money for the information in regard
To the value of the stock in New York,
and had promised me there would be
nothing done until l had got full and
complete statement from my New
york correspondent, when he knew at
that very time that he was telling me
to go on and make this investigation
that he had entered into written
contract with Kelly & Kelly to effect
a sale He stated to me if l would
come before the board and make
statement that they would reimburse
me for the time spent and also Tor the
amount | had forwarded to New York
to pay for the investigation, L inform
Cd him THAT I could not and would
not swear to a warrant drawn on the
county treasurer for the payment OF
money which did not consider that |
mad rendered adequate service ana
under no consideration would I accept
of the same" On the day following,
July Is, there appeared in the Daily
CAPITAL the following notice: "Coun-
ty gets S22,5O0 for Missouri Paclhc
bonds; the brokers who sold them get
$500 commission. The county treas
IIrer Yesterday received a check for
$22. 500 from Kelly & Kelly, bond
brokers, for the $50 shares of the Mis-
souri, Pacific formerly owned by
shawnee county. The stock sold for
S4O a share, twice the amount
offered by representative of an
Omaha brokerage firm who was in the
CITY one month ago. According to
the agreement with the county
commissioners Kelly & Kelly retain
$500 of the sale price as their COM
mission. The county board allowed
them so per cent of all money over
SIX 600 thew received for the stock"
There is a difference of $500 in these
two statements which are supposed to
emanate from the firm of Kelly &
Kelly Either the first statement in
which thev alleged that the stock sold
for $50 share is incorrect or the last
statement in which they alleged that
the stock was sold for $40 share is
incorrect. The people are wondering
which of the two statements they can
The regular brokerage charges for
making a sale for this amount of
stock on Wall street in New y DIRK lS
S93.7I5 and it would seem that the
county commissioners were spending
the county's money with very lavish
hands when they were paying $500
for effecting a sale of $50 shares of
stock for at least $40 share less
than than the market value. This is
a clear case in which the tax payers
of this county are being robbed at both
ends of the deal and I for one raise
my voice in protest and the commits
sioners Will have to answer to the
people at the next election
This whole transaction is thorough
" saturated with deception and per-
haps worse from center to circum-
ference. In my interview with Mr..
O'Nen I called his attention to the
fact that under the statutes I failed
to find from what source he derived
his authority and he informed me
that he was lawyer and guessed he
knew fully as much about the leSal
status OF this proposition as l. did.
informed him that I thought he
ought to know more. but he evident
" has changed his mind as he came
out a few days ago in the paper and
acknowledged that the whole tran
saction is illegal and void. He did not
make this admission however until
after the county attorney had sus-
tanned the position that l had taken.
I will herewith quote section No.
1920 of the general statutes of Kansas
1901, for the benefit of those who
have not an opportunity to examine
for themselves.
no property belonging to any
county over the value Of $500 and
less than $4,000 shall be sold or dis
posed of by any board of county COM
unless the same is SOLD or
such commissioners and not then I'M
til public notice for at least 20 days
of the proposed sale or disposal and
of the time and place and conditions
thereof, shall first be given in some
newspaper. published in the Eng
lish language and circulated general
" in the county by which such prop
erty is proposed to be sold or dis
posed OF, and no property the value
OF which shall be over $4,000 shall be
of by any county commits
siOneTs unless the proposition of sale
or disposal shall first be submitted to
q vote of the electors of the county
and receive a majority of the votes
cast at such election. specially to be
called by the commissioners or at
some general election, and if such
vote shall authorize any sale such
sale shall be made upon the notice
herein before provided by puDiica-
ton to the highest bidder in cash or
county indie btneSS and if the proper
ty to be sold shall be railroad or
other stock in any Incorporated COM
pany an amount equal to one-tenth
of the entire amount held by such
county shall he offered separately
for sale provided however, the, entire
amount shall be sold or disposed of
in bulk the same can be done to bet
ter advantage to the interest of the
county,
In view of the above section TO say
the least the commissioners are
grossly incompetent and should re-
sign at once. They should have
sought the counsel of the county at