The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-07-27
MIR LACKsoN,s FEES.

1.-THE court awards it, and the law
doth give it." But it would appear to
be a rather loose and improper law
which will permit the attorney geA-
eral of Kansas to go into a county and
collect thousands of dollars worth of
fees for no more than the discharge of
his duty in the enforcement of the
prohibitory law, even If it does in
volve a little extra work on the part
of himself and his assistants.
Not only that but the methods en-
ployed by Attorney General Jackson
and his assistants in their wholesale
liquor prosecutions in Leavenworth
county, rather smack of the question
able in many instances. Most people
will be sure to form the idea that
these methods amounted to about the
same thing in many instances as haul
ing prohibitory law violators to court,
filming them for their illegal traffic,
permitting them to go on their way
again and back to their old trade, and
then yanking them up again and as
sessing another fine against them.
This was the system that has been
pursued by several cities in Kansas.
It was, in reality, demanding an in
direct license from joints and saloons
for the privilege of doing business in
violation of the law. In these in
stances the money went into the city
treasury. In the cases under discus
sion, a large portion of the money as
sessed against the jointists has gone
into the pockets of the attorney gen.
eral. his assistants and others who
helped in the prosecutions. Mr.. Jack
son, too. has been instrumental in
bringing several suits against city au-
thorities which have resulted in their
being ousted from office for filming
jointists in this way and then permit
ting them to go back to their business
of violating the law.
Mr.. Jackson is probably Of the opin-
ion that the situations are not analo-
gous He has already explained that
these Leavenworth cases were not the
regular criminal cases against joint
| lists, that is, direct prosecutions on
charges that they had sold liquor
| illegally. They were what he calls civil
suits. In other words he brought in
functions against the Leavenworth
| iointists to prohibit them from rum
MING their places. And he says that
commitments to Jail can only be made
in such cases should the injunction be
violated and the individuals against
whom they are issued thereby get into
contenpt of court. But in the list OF
these Leavenworth cases, published re-
Gently If appears that several mel
we're proceeded against two or more
+,roas without being committed to jail
once Tt is also said that the record
men VINO
,,,ore actually committed to Jail fol
contempt were immeolately p"ioiee
ana never served a day OF their com
mitment.
All of this shows one thing clearly
The prohibitory law has been enforce'
only spasmodically in Leavenworth o.
the attorney generals department ane
the only advantage, apparently ina
voc accrued from this kind of law en-
forcement IS the fees that have helpee
70 fa+ten the purses of the attorne!
General and those who have helpe'
him in his prosecutions. Surely, tn
+irna has come when the legislatur'
should so amend the prohibitory IaV
that fees for convictions in joint case
will NOT he allowed, either to attorney
general or county attorneys. IL an
men do not want such offices for tn
stated salaries that go with them un
less they are to have an opportunit!
TO earn bonuses for the enforcement
the prohibitory law, they do not nee'
to ask the people for them. 1t woul'
be lust as reasonable and sensible I
hang up a bonus to prosecuting officer
for every time they get conviction
under any law. With such state
: affairs, life would soon become intol
: cradle for the people of any commun
ity which might get prosecuting OF
hcer of the unscrupulous type.