, 1924-10-01
S2,175.49

S~2,175.49|
Total Elk. Criminal Cases s5,SO3.s1'
Mr.. Goppert is anxious thai every
voter in the county note the cost
of the cases as set forth above, and
if there is any doubt as to the au-
thenticity of the figures check them
with the records in the clerk of the
courts office. Note hat the Turf
case cost %s312.65, instead of zap
proXimately 1000" That the Liv-
ingston case cost $534.97. instead
of Sin the n-eighborhood of $4,000"
Also that the prosecution of this
case got a return in full to the
county from the bondsmen, where
otherwise the shortage would never
have been collected. That the Simp-
son case cost $2,175.49, instead of
an approximate $4,000" That all
of the cases in which a jury was
used, since Mr.. Goppert's term of
office, have been handled at an ex-
pense less than $1,000.
Searching Private Homes
Regarding the use of John Doe
warrants and the searching of pri-
vate homes. Mr.. Goppert declares
that there have been none of these
practices used which can be charged
to him. There have been A LIQUOR
search warrants and six other
search warrants issued since he
has been in office. Never has there
been a John Doe search warrant
. a gains n nrf-otN
all know that any such warrant
would not stand up in court. At
tacks We're made upon six search
warrants issued in the district
court. Not a single warrant has
been quashed to date. They never
would have stood up in court had
they been John Doe warrants.
There has been no promiscuous
searching of residences since 1 took
Office. Complaints are not signed
or filed until the place has gained
the reputation in the whole COM
munity that it is an open liquor
JOINT. over half of the search war
rants have brought results; most
OF the Others were issued too late
to obtain results, due principals to
the fact that I refuse to sign a
complaint until positively convinced
by proper evidence that an unIaw-
tul traffic in booze is being carried
or at that particular place.
NO private home has ever been
searched under my administration
Tor a private stock" of liquor and
none will be if l have anything TO
do with it, for the law
liquors kept for and served 70 n
PERSONS own individual use or that
or bona fide guests in his house
hold. Of course. if someone should
abuse this privilege, I would do al,
in my power to bring him to tus-
tice.
John Doe warrants have been is
sued on three or foul occasions for
the arrest of someone whose real
and true name was unknown. RIIt
these warrants never authorized the
search of %anyone's home. They
simply ordered the arrest of the
person who had committed a GER
tain crime on a certain date.
Il have never allowed any officer
to make a search of any residence
vi hoHle Ou Il JOnn Doe warrant.
and 1 W will. 1t seems strange
that some people are so unfair as
to make statements alleging that
have done so, without any facts
to prove what they tell. The rec
and 1 trust that anyone thinking
ard I trust that yon thinking
that they know of a John Doe
search warrant will check up on the
matter"
Cost of Prohibition Enforcement
This department of the county
attorneys business has been much
exaggerated. Less than half of the
county attorneys time is consumed
in the prosecution of criminal cases
and less than one-third of that is
given to liquor law violation. St,u
1 wish that it were possible to pros
ecute all offenders of the laws Of
the state at the same profit as has
been shown in liquor cases. The
clerk of courts records show a net
return in cash of $5,3OO.O2 and in