Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1892-08-04

warner > dulltOFS can ma the ItpOIt
ct a committee appointed by Speaker
gate the affairs of the peniten. iary.
desire to make q few brief quotations
from this interesting document The
committee says:
1--WE have endeavored to conduct the
investigation in spirit of fairness,
with the sole desire to ascertain wheth-
er the interests have been properly
cared for by those to whom had been
intrusted the responsible duties OF
managing and directing this most inn
portant institution in 1867 and 1865. =
= After a patient hearing OF the
matter and careful examination OF
the books of the institution, we are
forced, reluctantly, we must confess,
to the conclusion that the management
thereof has been of the most reckless
character and highly detrimental to
the interests of the state. Indeed the
penitentiary and the supplies pur-
chased, ostensibly for its use, seem to
have been regarded as the legitimate
prey of almost every body connected
with it in an official capacity, and in
some, if not many, instances, favored
friends were invited into the ring to
share its spoils. In addition
to furnishing supplies to prisoners, as
legitimately authorized by law, the
families of nearly all the officials,
guards and employees, as also the
families of some of the state Of
fieials governor, auditor, treas
urer, etc. }, and the families of others
not connected with the prison, obtained
a large portion of their supplies of
beef, flour. bacon, corn, hay, wood and
coal, etc, from the prison stores
Mr.. Thompson, the state auditor, APP
pears from the testimony to have been
a liberal patron of the institution in
the matter of employing convict labor,
and has now about his premises endur-
ing monuments of their industry and
skill in the shape of pavements, stone
floors, walks. etc. We find that the to-
tai amount charged Mr.. Thompson for
work done by convicts for him in 1853
was $1S7.12, whilst in the same year
we find that Mr.. Thompson presented a
bill against the city of Jefferson for
work incidently done on the streets by
these same convicts, whilst working
for him, of about $500, and about 5000
of which was allowed and paid.
'.It is in evidence that quite a num-
Der of prison officials, employees, etc, as
we'll as some of the state officials, have
built during this period some very COM
Portable houses, stone walls, ETC., pro-
curing most, if not all, of the stone and
brick from the prison quarry and
teams, a good share of the dressing,
cutting and laying of the stone and
brick done by convict labor, as well as
the digging Of foundations.
1--WE find that the deputy warden had
in cultivation one and half acres Of
land in the year 1868 from which he
sold the penitentiary lettuce, onions
and cabbage to the amount of 81, 215.52).
Ordinarily, in order to arrive at the net
profits, we would have to deduct from
this sum the cost of production, but in
this case the purchaser, the state of
Missouri, generously furnished, free of
cost, the necessary labor for cultivation
of ground and boards the laborer gratis.
learn from the testimony that a portion
of these things were given back to the
seller without any charge whatever"
This report is much too long to read
the whole of it at this time. 1 have
given you some fair samples of what it
contains. 1 commend it to Maj. Warner,
and 1 sincerely hope he will enlighten,
if not delight, his audience the next
time he may have occasion to discuss
the pcnitentiary by reading the whole
sufficient interest in that subject to dis
cuss it at all.
MORE COMPARISONS.
Maj. Warner pirates about demo-
cratic extravaganza, but is hard pressed
to find some facts upon which to predi-
cate his charge. If he can not find a
fact, he makes one. If the thing he
seeks and hungers for does not materi-
alize, he simply calculates, LET there
be light" and there is light. His Soda
liza delivery is full of just such jugglery
and artful imposture as that have ex-
posed with reference to our railroad
debts and the penitentiary. 1t is i'm
possible for one to attack his state
ments seriatim, and correct all the mis-
conceptions it was intended to create.
A man can make or insinuate charge
in half dozen words that it would
take a column to explain or expose,
when to do so it becomes necessary to
enter into details and develop the his
tory of the transaction. But if can not
follow the ma or through all his tortu
osities, / can at least bring him up to
one or two sharp comparisons illustrat-
ing the methods of the two parties on
the subject of public expenditures as
practiced in this state.
LEGISLATIVE EXPENSE.
Take for instance, the cost to the
people of the general assembly of the
state during the repu blican regime and
contrast it with the cost of that body,
when assembled under the auspices Of
the democratic party. A new legisla-
tive body is elected every two years.
and hence during the six years, from
1865 to 1870 there were three separate
legislatures assembled at the capital.
Those three bodies cost the people ST..
U62. 0s3. %.
From 1873 to 1890, period of eigh-
teen years, the democracy was in con-
troll, and during that time nine differ
ent legislatures were elected and as.
sem bled at Jefferson City. Those nine
bodies cost the people s4,723, 703. IS.
The average cost of each assembly
under republican rule was 1854, OF. "A;
while the average cost of each assembly
under democratic rule was onlyS191, 522. =
.65. 1t cost nearly twice as much to
support republican legislature as a
democratic one.
PRINTING EXPENSE.
Again, during that same period, from
1866 to 1870, there were paid out of the
public moneys for printing laws and
journals the sum of s102, 64s.S2. Dur
ing the eighteen years from 1878 to 1890
there were paid out of the public mon
eys for printing laws and journals $685.
1926. Thus it may be seen the repub-
licans expended s9,215.36 more in six
years for printing than the democrats
expended on that account in eighteen
yaars.
In this connection it might not be
amiss to direct attention to the fact that
in the good old days when the party
progress" was at the helm the secretary
of state, auditor, register of lands and
other state officials were, in addition to
their salaries, permitted to charge and
collect fees for their services, and to re-
tain them as part of their perquisites.