The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-02-10
BROOKE Merry.
Does Not Represent the City of
Topeka
But PreSumeS to NEEDLE in City
Affairs
BY WORKING AGAINST
The Abolition of the Useless
Office of Commissioner
OF Elections Which Is Just as
Indefensible
AS Metropolitan Police System
Which Had to Go.

The only ripple that occurred in the
| house yesterday was when the bill aboI.
ishing the office of election commission
er in cities of the first class was brought
up for passage, at which time the Nc
| heeVer- Brooke difficulty was lad
| justed.''
Under the rules of the house. after a
| Dill has been through the committee OF
| the whole it is not subject to amend
| ment or debate unless so recommended
| by the committee. Mr.. Brooke, however
wished to debate it, and he did SO until
| called to order by Mr. Fairchild.
Mr.. Kutz moved to suspend the rules
| TO allow Mr. Brooke to debate the bill,
| but Mr.. Brooke said he only wanted
| fairness and did not wish that the house
| should give him any special privileges.
| Mr.. McKeever then rose to a question
| of personal privilege, in order to explain
| limitations from Mr.. Brooke that he
| had not acted fairly in the matter.
Il introduced this bill two years ago, -
| said Mr.. McKeever but the PopuIists
did not pass it, and as soon as 1 had a
chance to introduce it at a session
Wnere thought 1t would be passed L
did so. I introduced this bill at the in
stance of my constituents here in the
city of Topeka 1 am stopped at every
block and asked to push the bill through
because the taxpayers of Topeka do not
want to pay for it any longer when it
does no good. The deputy does all the
work there is to be done, and the COM
missioner draws the salary
understanding on my part concerning
Mr.. Brooke's action with regard to this
bill 1t was first referred to the COM
mittee on elections and by it reported
favorably. Mr.. Brooke came to me and
said that he intended to try to have it
referred to another committee. The next
thing knew of the bill it had been re-
ferred to the judiciary committee, of
which / am chairman. At the time I
supposed Mr.. Brooke had the reference
made, but have since learned that it
was an accident on the part of the
speaker. My committee made the same
recommendation AS the elections COM
mittee made, and when it came up in
committee of the whole the bill was
passed in regular order. / noticed that
Mr. Brooke was absent at the time and
1 sent the clerk of the judiciary COM
mittee out to find him, but he could not
be found.
to show that the insinuations that
have acted in q two-faced manner in re-
gard to this are untrue.
MY colleague. Mr.. Stephenson. and
myself represent the city of Topeka,
while Mr.. Brooke represents Shawnee
county. This bill refers to the city
alone, and all we ask is that Mr.. Brooke
allow us to represent the city and we
will allow him to represent the county.
If 1 have il1-treated him in any way L
apologize to this house for it,
When the roll was called Mr. Brooke
replied to Mr.. McKeeVer by explaining
his vote.
L have no personal feelings toward
my colleague in this matter" he said.
but Topeka is my city as we'll as it is
these other gentlemen's. I have petitions
mere, holding up handful of papers,
protesting against the passage of this
bill. Among the signatures are those
of the chairmen of both the Republican
city and county central committees. and
five out of ten of the city councilmen
Through this office we have had fair
politics. The present incumbent al
though a POpulist, has conducted the
Office fairly and impartialIy and has re-
ceived many compliments from Repub-
licans.
Il acknowledge that I have an inter-
personal friend of mine is a deputy in
that office and he is not able to do a
days manual labor, but he is able and
competent to fill his office and L would
be a poor friend if I did not try to do
what I could to keep him from being
thrown out of his place"
Mr.. Lawrence, chairman of the cleo
came up before my committee we were
informed that Mr.. Brooke's opposition
to it came from the fact that he had a
relative in the Office
II have not a relative in Topeka" in
terrupted Mr.. Brooke
There were &c votes for the bill and
IL against it. The negative votes were
Brooke, Rurkholder, Francis, Gillispie
Grattan, Kutz, Poison, Reser, Rodgers
Scott of Elk, Shoemaker.
There is no personal feeling between
Mr.. McKeever and myself over the mat
ter" said Mr.. Brooke afterward TT
was simply a difference of opinion re-
sarding this bill and we got a little
%a la