The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-10-17
IT is OUT At LAST
All the Dreadful Truth About
the Tax Bill.
Letter from Bale Waggener
Tells 1t All.
SMITH TAKES A HAND.
Tells AtchisOn Lawyer He Is
Much Mistaken.
"YOa Pays Your Money and
Takes Your Choice

Senator Fred Dumont Smith this
week, publishes in his paper. the Kins
ley Mercury, the open letter sent to him
by B. P. Waggener of Atchison, cover
ing the defeat of the tax bill last win
ter 1t is more than three columns long,
and Senator Smith follows it with a two
column reply. Both are recognized as
among the shrewdest lawyers in the
state, they were the leaders of opposite
ideas in the taxation legislation last
winter. and consequently the two letters
are extremely interesting. Mr. Wag
gener says in part:
'tAtchison. Kan, Oct. ;, 1903.
Hon. F. Dumont Smith, Kinsley, Kan.
My Dear Senator:-My attention has
been called to a communication from
you in the Kansas CITY Journal of date
october 3, in Kansas Notes. under the
title of How the Tax Bill was De-
feated.' Inasmuch as you used my
name quite freely in that communica-
ton, I am constrained to believe that
it is my duty to reply to it and to give
you the first opportunity of publishing
my reply in your paper.
II have such a high regard for your
integrity as a man and your exalted
standing before the people of this state,
L feel satisfied you will not hesitate to
publish this communication, to the end
that all the people may be advised as
1t properly belongs.
IF my memory serves me right, you
were a member of the joint committee
eff So, appointed to consider the tax bill
which had been reported by the tax
commission. Twenty-Five of the mem
bers of this committee were appointed
from the house and ten from the senate;
and as now remember. this committee
was appointed at your instance. to the
end that the tax measure might be con-
.A@l
to each house for final action. That
committee met and took I'D the tax bill
reported by the commission You were
present at each session of the commit
tee. When the Francis amendment was
offered, did YCu not make a speech in
favor of it. and work for it's adoption?
Was it not adopted unanimously? At
the conclusion of its labors. did not the
joint committee appoint you on behalf
of the senate and Representative Peck
and myself on behalf of the house, as
a committee to classify and number
the sections and report the conclusions
of the joint committee to each house?
Did you not, without any conference
with Mr.. Peck and myself. make up
your report to the senate?
4 find on page 457 of the senate
journal. the following:
Senator Smith, on behalf of the
joint committee appointed under the
provisions of senate concurrent resolu-
report:
OF the joint committee Of the senate
and house of representative on SEN
ate bill No. ia and house bill No. $50,
An Act to provide for the assessment.
levy and collection of taxes.
MIR. President: The joint committee
of the senate and house, which has mad
unders consideration senate bill No. ia
and house bill No. $50, An Act to pro-
60, ho lew and roll
lection of taxes herewith return the
said bill as amended by the joint com
mittee with the recommendation that it
be passed as amended.
f. DUMONT SMITH,
Member of the Committee designated to
make report.
SOME POINTED QUESTIONS.
WAS that a true or false report? Is
1t not fact that you deliberately and
Intentionally suppressed the Francis
amendment which rad been adopted by
the Joint committee of thirty-fve? Were
YOU authorized by the joint committee
of thirty-five to suppress any amend
nent which it had adopted? Did you
advise either Mr.. Peck or myself that
YOU intended to suppress this amend
ment? Did you ask either of US TO
sign a report indicating TO us that you
had suppressed this amendment? At
whose instance did you suppress it.
I'm a speech on the floor of the SEN
ate Won said, so l am informed, that
before YOU suppressed this amendment
YOU got the consent of Mr.. Francis. its
author. You are aware of the fact that
Mr.. Francis stated in writing over his
own signature after you had made this
statement. that he did not consent to
1t and had no knowledge that it was
to be suppressed. but assuming your
statement to be correct, why did you
ASK for his consent to suppress it? Why
were you so interested in suppressing
an amendment which had been unan-