The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-01-25
HOW MIR. JACKSON FIGURES.


It's to be admitted that much legal
procedure is as Greek to the ordinary
Iayman. So are many of the argu
ments that are presented by lawyers in
perfectly legal fashion. That's what
makes many of them so effective. No
body understands them. not even oc-
casionally, the man VINO is presenting
them. But once in while feeble
intellect that has not been groomed in
the intricacies of Blackstone is able
to penetrate, partially at least, into
the argumentative efforts of legal
lights. especially if their candle-power
IS not particularly intense. And they
cannot help but marvel at the spe-
ciousness they find.
Fred s. Jackson, the former attor-
ney general, in the first statement he
issued concerning the proposed inves-
tigation of the fees collected in his
department for prosecutions of viola
tors of the liquor law, treated the
charge that 100000 had SO been col
lected as "a joke" He said that per-
sonally he had received on an average
of only $1,000 a year in such fees, and
that such other fees as were collected
were distributed among his assistants,
county attorneys and others taking
active part in these prosecutions.
In his fault-f1nding reply to an edi-
torial appearing in these columns
which in the main merely insisted that
nothing of harm could coma from the
proposed nvestigation-he says, but
suppose 100000 had been collected
in such fees and distributed up prop
erly among all those besides himself
who took part in the prohibitory pros
ecutions. Suppose" to quote Mr..
Jackson exactly, cit to be 100000,
scattered over the one hundred and
five counties and four years time, d.
vided among county attorneys, attor-
neys for the State Temperance union,
county assistants, in whose fees have
no interest, the assistants of my office
and myself, IT would be about $3.50 per
annum for each county and ten to
twenty dollars for each case. Would
that be an exorbitant sum for the work
done?"
Certainly not, most people will say,
in dividing the 100000 up amongst
the los counties of the sta-s and COW
ering a period of four years. Putting
it on such a basis assureGly minlmlzes
the amount. But is it fair for Mr.
Jackson who is such a stickler for
exact expressions when other people
are doing the talking to divide the
money up on such a basis? He ought
to know-everybody else in the state
aoes.-that many of the los counties
in Kansas have been "dry." liquorially
speaking, dry as a bone for many
years. The number of counties in
which he found it necessary to oper-
ate actively either by himself. through
his assistants, or through special as
sstant attorneys general-and these
are the activities at issue in the pro-
posed investigation-do not exceed ten.
it is safe to say. Indeed, six is likely
to be the figure more nearly correct.
ana the bulk of the fees in question.
whether they amounted to $4,000 or
100000, were collected in these few
counties. Yet Mr.. Jackson. for the
purpose of minimizing the size of the
fees collected, says if you apportion
them out among the 1O5 counties of
the state they do not amount to very
much per county per annum That's
true, but it is an unfair basis to figure
on. And it also casts the odium on
many, many counties of Kansas,-zeal-
Gus of their regulations of being dry"
territory-that the prohibitory law has
been so flagrantly violated in them
that it was necessary for attorneys
general, state temperance authorities
and every one else connected with the
enforcement of the law to swoop
down on them and put them in order.