The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-10-12

1 L.
ruled by the court. The objections
| made by Martin to the Validity of the
custer law were that its subject is not
| clearly expressed in the title; that s }
much of it as relates tc removing the
| il cumbents of offices created by the
constitution is ineffective because the
| constitutional provisions for their re-
nloval by impeachment is exclusive,
and that this forms such an essential
part of the legislation that its invalid
| ity makes the whole enactment void.
z lie court held that Martins attacks
| upon the constitutionality of the law
were not well taken.
In discussing the points which he
raised against the validity of the act
| the court says: 1.-The title AN act pro-
| viding for the removal of unfaithful
public officials and providing a pro-
cedure therefor, is broad enough to
! cover a provision for the suspension
of an officer prior to the final hearing
in an action for his removal, and pro-
visions imposing upon various officials
new duties intended to aid in procur-
ing the removal of officers guilty of
| misconduct. Assuming that an act
providing a method for the removal
for misconduct of all states, district,
county, township and city officers Eek
cepting judges of the supreme and
district court and members of the
1eg.slature) is imperative as to the
incumbentS of the state offices created
be removed only by impeachment,
this consideration does not affect the
validity of the act as to other officers"
There were five separate charges
made by the attorney general against
Sheriff Martin. They were:
First-That he knew of an effort to
prevent the enforcement of the pro-
hibitory law by raising a fund for the
bribery of public officers and took no
steps TO prevent its success.
SnPnnA--'Fh3f a
which commanded him to seize all the
intoxicating liquors, to be found at
certain place by taking only small
part thereof. his returns showing
seizure of all that was found.
Third-That he connived at an ar
rangemcnt by which persons commit
ted to the Jail for the violation of the
prohibitory law, were allowed to pro-
vide substitutes to serve out their SEN
tence.
Fouth-That he negligently allowed a
considerable portion of a quantity of
liquor which he had seized under a
warrant to be disposed of while being
transported TO the county scat.
Fifth--That knowing that the pro-
Eibitory law was being violated in the
county he failed to furnish the county
attorney with the facts concerning
these violations.
William P. Hackney of Winfield
doesn't have to pay taxes on his fe-
male dog. 1t isn't because the city
lacked legislative authority to enact
an ordinance providing for the taxing
of owners of dogs, but because the
city tried to do too many things in
the one ordinance. The statutes pro-
vide that no ordinance shall contain
more than one subject and the Win
field ordinance providing for the tax
ing of dog owners contained more
than one subject Mr.. Hackney
owned a female dog. The taxation on
that variety of dogs is high and Hack
ney objected to paying it. He is a
lawyer and saw the faults in the ordi
nance. He stood pat. The city
brought an action in the district court
to collect the tax and collect the pen
atty. 1t lost the case and appealed.
The supreme court affirms the deci-
sion of the district court.
Katherine TasselI, Topeka joint
ist, must go to Jail for selling liquor
Shawnee county district court, the SUI
preme court today establishes the fact
that failure of the county attorney to
endorse names of witnesses on the
information is not fatal to the states
case. The TaSSell woman was arrest !
ed for selling liquor. Before the trial, |
County Attorney Simon endorsed |
names of certain witnesses on the in |
formation without the consent of the |
court. The defendants demurred !
and Simon asked permission to re- |
file the names of his witnesses. The |
court consented, the defendant was |
convicted and the case was appealed. |
Now the supreme court holds that the |
county attorneys failure to secure the |
permission of the court to endorse his |
witnesses in the first instance is not |
serious and that the case should be |
tried on it's merits.