, 1891-01-20
BACK TO THE RECORD.
What the House Journal Proves
Regarding Senate File 81.
No Evidence to Show That II Was
on Second Reading,
But lndisputabIe Evidence TO Show
That II Wasn't.

To the Editor OF the Leader.
CHEYENNE, Wyo., jan. l9.-As Mr..
L. S. Bartlett has been explaining his &C
ton in regard to the Moudell apportion-
ment bill through the press of this city,
and in SO doing has referred to the mem
bers who opposed the bill as 'traducers,
bulldozers and crazy fanatics and at the
same time endeavored to justify his con-
duct by referring to the journal of the
house; while carefully suppressIng the
facts upon which cur charges we're based,
l desire through your columns to refute
his statements, in defense of myself and
colleagues. / have examined the journal
OF the house, as Mr.. Bartlett invited us
to do, and L find hat on the sth day Of
January, S. F. No. 81, the apportionment
bill was reported back to the house With
out recommendation by the committee to
whom it was referred. 1t was then
placed upon the general file and thatcven-
ing the house in committee of the whole
acted upon all the bills on the file except
S. F. No. CT. which was not considered
by the committee, nor is it mention
ed In the journal in the report of the com
mittee. This left the bill on the general file
to be considered when next the house re-
solved itself into a committee of the
whole, or postponed as they saw fit. On
the 9th the following entry appears upon
the journal; IS. F. No. 81. etc read
second time, aud on motion of Mr.. Sweet
made the special order of the day at IL
o'clock Saturday morning" Mr.. Bart
lett may have read the bill a second time
to himself, but not so the house could
hear him: neither did the speaker put the
question which follows the second reading
OF a bill, Shall the bill be engrossed and
read the third timer" The rules of the
house say that each bill must be consid
cred in committee of the whole, except
under suspension OF the rules There is
not one line, not one word in the journal
which will show that the bill Is. +. No.
CD was so considered; that the rules were
suspended for its passage, or that the
house ever authorized the bill being put
non its second reading. Then by what
authority did the chief clerk take the bill
fron the committee OF the whole and
place Vt upon the file for the second read
inRp BY what right did he arrOgate to
himself the power which belonged to the
house alone2
No one but a fool or an unprecedented
scoundrel would have dared to attempt
such a thing. Right here | base the
charges that | made. First, that the bill
had not taken its regular course; secondly,
that | was in my seat when the motion
was put to make the bill the special order
OF the day for IL O'Clock Saturday morn
ing, and although tho motion to make
the bill the special order of the day is en-
tered upon the journal as occurring right
after the second reading of the bill, l
hoard nothing of such reading, though L
r~s watching for such a move and ready
to object on the ground that tie bill had
never been considered in committee of the
who'll aud the journal would prove the
truth of the statement If correctly kept.
l never heard the motion 10 exOnerate
the chief clerk, but | did hear a motion
OF that kind IN regard to the speaker and
voted in favor OF the same as | liked Mr..
Kellogg and thought that probably he
was not cognizant of the general cussed-
ness of the scheme and | was willing to
give him the benefit of the doubt: but |
never voted to exonerate the chief clerk
nor heard any motion to that effect.
was out of town and did not return
until Yesterday and therefore had not seen
the papers until | returned or would
have answered his misrepresentation as
soon as they we're uttered.
WILLIAM Brown.