The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-12-29

tempted to obtain money from the
: state Judge Edwards held omission
Judge Edwards Decision.
Judge Edwards decision follows:1
The motion to quash the. indict-
naents and each count thereof may,
for the purpose of this operation, be
divided into three general sub-divi-
aFirst, That the board of supervis-
ors of Sangamon county which select
ed the grand jury was not legal
board in March 1921 when said grand
jurors were named, for the following
| reasons:
"(A)-The county board was never
legally organizedi as required by
statute.
! "(B)-The grand jurors were named
| by a committee on juries,' whose ap-
| pointment is questioned.
"(C)-The board by its adjourn
| ment on September IA, 1920, to
| Thursday adjourned sine die, and no
special meeting was called pursuant to
statute.
Rule of Secrecy Violated.
'.Seeond-The so-called special re-
pert by the grand jury that returned
these indictments was prejudicial to
I the. rights of the defendantg to the
| extent that no conviction could be sus-
tanned, and they claim in support
| thereof:
"(A)-The rule of secrecy was vio-
lated.
"B)-Evidence was detailed and
findings made by said body that are in
| violation of the constitution wherein
| due process of law is guaranteed ev-
cry citizen.
! "(C)@The publicity given said re-
port depftves the defendants of the
I presumption of innocence guaranteed
every accused
Third - The remaining points
raised and argued, question the suffi-
| cheney and validity of certain counts
in each of said indictments;
."(Al-The state in reply contends
t5rat the board of supervisors in ques-
! ton was legally organized:
"CB)-That if not legally organized
| it became a de fact" board by virtue
! of the regular June, 1920, meeting.
i "(C)-That the adjournment of
| September IA, 1890, was not sine die
adjournment.
"O)-That the special report of
| the grand jury does not affect the va
lidity of the indictments.
| Taken Up in Order.
These questions would be treated
in the order as herein above named.
I'm the determination of the legal
| ity of the board of supervisors of San
CANON county for the year 1920-1921
1t was necessary thaL evidence Ue
taken in open court.
From said evidence the court
makes the following finding of facts:
THAT an alleged special meeting of
eaid board of supervisors was held in
April, 1920. at which the board organ
lied by electing a chairman and inter
| ala appointed a committee on jurors
THAT said special meeting was not
| called pursuant to statute in that the
county clerk did not cause the publ
cation of notice as provided by law.
| THAT there were regular meetings
| of said board in June and September,
1920.
THAT on September Il, 1920, said
board adjourned until Thursday. In
connection with the last finding the
| defense introduced a certified copy of
the. record of said September meeting
Records We're Altered.
1.-The state then called to the stand
| Charles w. Byers, county clerk of
Sangamon county, and introduced the
record of said clerk showing after the
word Thursday the words 'Septem-
| Der 18th, 1920 The period after the
word Thursday has not been erased
or altered, the words September 18th,
1920 are written, in a slightly differ
emit coloFed ink and are a fraction of
an inch higher in, alignment than is
/
| Byers persistently swore that there
was no period. that there was no diff
/ ference in the color of the ink nor the
alignment of the sentence.
''The court thereupon adjourned
this case one week and the state Of
fered further evidence. Byers then
| testified that the record had been al
tered; that it had been done by one
Ethel S. Bucklin, an employe in his
| office in the month of July, 1921,
some time after the indictments had
| been returned. He did not explain to
the court why he gave these defen-
| oants, subsequent to the time he now
claims the record was altered, a certi-
! fled copy of the records which does
not show the alteration; nor how it
| happened that a clerk in his office
without his knowledge or authority
made this change.
| Neither does he explain his confu-
sion when first called to the stand,
when with blanched face, with per-
| spiration beading his forehead. with
| trembling lips, and with shaking
hands he persistently stuck to his
story.
| Grand Jury Legal.
''The court is of the opinion. however,
that this effort was unnecessary that aItho
the board of supervisors was not regularly
vet it became de faeto' body at the reg
| ular June meeting with de facto chair
man ana committee on Jurles' following
the law of this state as laid down by our
supreme court in Marsh VS.. The People
Supra.
THE court finds there was a substantial
compliance with the statute by the board
t of supervisors of Sangamon county and
that the grand jury was a legal grand
| jury.
I'm regard to the special report of the
| grand jury, it appears from the record that
in addition to the indictments the grand
| jury returned so called special report,
which was, upon the order Of the presid-
ing Judge, spread upon the records of the
| court. It also appears from affidavits on
4 file that copies of said report were fur
nished to all newspaper Correspondents
/ also that approximately 1920 copies of
| said report were circulated in Lake coun-
| ty, H. by said newspapers"
After quoting at length from court de-
1 cisions IN which especial reports'' have
been involved the decision continued;
| Due process of law is both a federal
and state guaranty to an citizens. As
applied to special proceedings 1t means a
proceeding upon inquiry which renders
| Judgment only after trial. Every person.
be he of high ami exalted position or the