The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-04
SUES FOR BIG FEES
Attorney General Brings Civil
Action Against JOintists.
Would Collect $4,000 From
LeavenwOrth Men.
IN FEDERAL COURT.
Starts Talk That Delay Was for
Political Reasons.
Denied at Office That There Is
Politics in 1t.
IN FEDERAL COURT.

Nine cases against Leavenworth
county liquor dealers were filed in the
United States court this morning by
Fred S. Jackson, attorney general, in
which the defendants are asked to pay
to Jackson attorney fees aggregating
$4,500. An attorneys fee of $500 is
asked in each of the nine cases.
1t is the contention of the attorney
general and his assistants that the nine
individuals ard firms against which
these cases were filed were selling
liquor in a manner not in accordance
with the interstate commerce laws.
These firms, it is alleged, rented or
owned warehouses in an adjoining
county in Missouri, and that when
Leavenworth county individual wanted
a consignment of liquor, he telephOned
to the warehouse in Missouri, and
wagon promptly drove across the river
and delivered the goods. This, it is
contended, constituted a violation of
the Kansas prohibitory law and the
defendants could not plead their cause
under the protection of interstate com
merce laws.
These are the largest fees asked by
the attorney general in any OF his
liquor prosecutions. In addition to
the attorney fees, a permanent injunc-
ton is asked against each of the de-
PENDANTS named in the petitions. Some
months ago it was claimed that the
attorney generals office received more
than $4,000 from liquor prosecutions in
LeaVenWOrth county, but the LeaVen-
worth county bar docket showed that
the fees were collected in some fifty
prosecutions.
Following the recent collection of
fees in Leavenworth and other coun-
ties, the bar dockets and affidavits of
the clerk of the court in the different
counties were used in the campaign by
Jackson's opposition in his race for
the congressional nomin alton in the
Fourth district.
PepperilI Mourns Lateness.
In discussing the nine cases filed
this morning, w. H L. Pepperill, Sec
retary of the Democratic state central
committee, said:
IF these cases had been filed earlier
in the week so that we mi ight have had
a chance to get at the petitions, the
story would have certainly been given
broadcast over the state and especially
in the Fourth district. I do not un
derstand why the cases were not filed
in the circuit court until today if there
were no reasons behind the motive;
and I do not believe the Leavenworth
clerk of the court would require an
entire week in which to certify the
cases from the district court to the
circuit court"
Nopolitics, Says Shukers.
general, denies that the filing of the
cases on this particular date could
have had any political significance.
Asked if the filing of the cases after
the country weeklies in Jackson's
home district had gone to press might
not prevent another agitation of big
fees, Mr.. Shukers said he did not be-
Heve it would make bit of difference.
IF there was any political motive
back of filing those cases today Sa id
ShnERTS ct do NOT know If neither n
I believe that there was any desire on
Mr.. Jackson's part to keep back these
cases until the last of the week. The
cases were argued in the Leavenworth
county district court lastThursday and
the petitions for removal were sustain
ed. The cases were to have been GER
titled to the circuit court at once and I
suppose they were sent here as soon as
the clerk of the court could prepare
them"
Following out the policy of the at
tack on JacksOn's big fees in the sum-
mer it is very probable that the Fourth
district Democrats would have given
the story rather wide publicity this
week had the material been in their
hands in time to supply the country
weeklies which Thursday printed their
last edition before the election
Jackson is in Marion county this
week and is not in Topeka today
The titles in the cases filed this morn
ing are:
State of Kansas vs.. Harry Rabino-
vitz and John Werley; State of KAN
sas VS.. NJ. V. Fitzgerald and ]. w.
Ryan; State of Kansas VS.. The Mon
arch Bottling company; State of KAN
sas VS.. Theodore Linck; State of Kan
sas vs. Herman Schultz; State of Kan
sas VS.. Nick Bucatti; State of Kansas
VS.. John Baum, John Baum, Jr and
Herman Baum; State of Kansas VS.. NJ.
Kerneyer; State of Kansas VS.. Henry
Comadt.