The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-11-14
MeanW lille the Evidence of If.
Irregularities Accumulates.
DREW FOR TWO PLACES
w. S. Harris Appears as Door
keeper and Janitor.
Another Case Where an EN-
plOye Was Paid Twice.

Some one can explain who juggled
the vouchers. warrants and pay roll
of the house of representatives last
winter Up TO this time that person
has been discreetly silent. It is time
that he be dragged out before the
public. Mr.. Mason. chief clerk of the
house, may be able to give information
which would lead to the apprehension.
but he has not yet done so. His
arrival in Topeka will be awaited with
interest.
Notwithstanding the assertions made
in some quarters that there is no evil
dence that the legislative pay rolls
were padded. such evidence is accu-
mulating In addition to the case of
E. Ritter, whose name, as told in the
k>ate Journal Friday, was placed on
the pay roll on the fourth pay day
without any authority from anybody,
so far as can be discovered from the
house journal, the investigation of the
vouchers by the clerks in the Office of
the state auditor reveal several other
instances which We're at least extreme
ly irregular.
The name of W. S. Harris appears
as drawing pay for $50 as a doorkeeper,
and AGAIN as drawing $24 as a janitor.
The oath alleging the bill to be correct
and unpaid is signed on one of the
vouchers, 'W S. Harris. per w. P.
Mason" and on the other just wv. S.
Harris" The warrants were evidently
cashed by Representative E. A. En-
right. of Wyandotte county, for they
are endorsed wv. S. Harris. by E. A..
Enright." Harris does not seem to
have been on the pay roll except dur
Ing the last eighteen days of the ses-
Sion
Harris is said to be a Wyandotte
county man. The only authority for
ms being on the pay roll at all appears
IN a resolution published on page 1894
OF the house journal. The Journal
reads as follows:
Mr.. Brown of Labette. by unani-
nous consent. offered house RESOLUTION
No. SO. as follows:
Resolved, That W. S. Harris be al
lowed ten days pay as janitor of the
mousse, ana moved its adoption, which
motion prevailed
lied to receive ten days pay as a tani-
tor, but instead he received eighteen
/ days pay, part of the time as a janitor
and part as doorlleeper. How was il
worked?
1t has also been discovered that
samuel Jamison, who is scheduled as
an assistant doorkeeper. drew pay for
$50 more than he was entitled to on a
says that he will communicate with
j; II. Mcfarland, of Lincoln, who was
chief doorkeeper of the house. and
make an effort to locate Iamison. If
ne can find him Auditor Wells will de-
Inand that he return the $50 that he
drew illegally from the state.
F. W. Knapp. who was journal clerk
! OF the last house, has explained how
there COMES to be a number of oaths of
office in the original copy of the house
journal, fill in with signatures of the
parties supposing to be swearing to
the oathS and with that of Speaker
Pringle all in the same handwriting.
He says that the original oaths were
handed in to the chief clerks office to
anybody who might be there, and that
several of them were lost. When the
! Journal was made up and their absence
| discovered duplicates were made out by
a clerk and placed in the journal to
make the journal correspond with the
pay roll.
This was certainly an extremely slip
shod method of doing business, as it
destroyed the value of the oaths and
if the pay roll was padded, it simply
aided in covering up this fact. In add
!