The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-08-19
PRISON FUND
CONTINUED from Page one.I

Continued from Page One.1
heard in Topeka some time next week.
ployees in the penitentiary, will be
called on behalf of the prosecution
and the defense. Nearly rs witnesses
will be called for the warden. Bot
kin himself will take the stand, it was
asserted, and will seek to refute every
material charge against his official
record.
To date the hearing has concerned
itself chiefly with the testimony of
discharged employees. 1t is largely
upon the evidence given by the men
discharged during the Botkin regime
that Governor Capper will seek the
discharge of the Democratic warden
and the governors most bitter politi-
cal enemy.
81 expect to go to the witness stand
myself and will refute every charge
made against me- declared Botkin.
Il am not relying on the benent OF a
doubt in this case. l expect to be able
to prove conclusively that my record
has been good and that there is no
cause or justification for my removal
further than that the present state ad-
ministration wants my job and seeks
to control the patronage at the pris-
on
Taking of testimony of Topeka wit
neSSeS in the case against Warden Bot
kin concluded without a serious dent
having been made by the prosecution.
Many charges were made by former
employees. In the main, though, ev-
cry witness admitted that the matter
had never been brought to the war
denis attention and that zeal had been
used to prevent infractions of rules
reaching the warden.
The last witness of Importance to be
called by the prosecution was DR.
Sherman L. AFFORD. physician at the
state soldiers home. Dodge City DR..
AFFORD was prison physician during
the Codding administration, but left
the institution a couple of weeks prior
to the inauguration of Botkin. The
physicians testimony concerned chief
ly the character and work of DIR. King,
an inmate who was permitted to fill
prescriptions and administer treat
ment.
In his testimony in chief, DR.. AK
ford stated that King was unreliable
and that he placed no confidence in
the man, either as a physician or as
man of good habits or morals. The
AFFORD testimony was strong. He said
that for two years durinc: his service,
King had been in the prison and that
he regarded him as unfit for profess
sional work.
Then the defense lifted DR.. AFFORD
off his feet.
Did you ever see this 1etter?' asked
A. M. Jackson on cross-examination
He handed AFFORD an envelope and
written the letter which was then Of
fered in evidence. The letter was adj
dressed to DIR. J. T. Faulkner sue
cessor to DR.. AFFORD as PRISON ply
stefan and was dated November s,
1913.
In the letter AFFORD recommended
King most highly, both as to charac-
ter, honesty, integrity, ability and 10y
atty. Speaking of Kings professional
work while he was prison physician
AFFORD wrote 81 am pleased to say
that his work was eminently satisfac-
tory
why did you write that letter, if
what you have saiu in direct exarnina-
ton is true?" asked Jackson.
"Just to please King" was the re-
ply.
Are the things you said in this let,
ter true?''
yes" IF . -,s-
''Then W did you say that you had
no confidence in the mans ability?"
He wanted another chance and I
thought 1 would help him.
A half dozen witnesses had testified
that King was not a registered phar-
macist, but until AFFORD went to the
stand, no reference had been made by
the defense to the flatterinS endorse
ment which the man had received
from the former prison physician.