The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-11-23
IT'S ANOLD STORY
Legislative Employees Graft Is
of Ancient Origin.
Never Before Carried to Extent
Reached Last Year.
is MUCH SURPRISED.
Dodge City Man Calls Attention
to Mendenhall Case.
Many Members Serve State at
Financial Loss.
is MUCH SURPRISED.

There seems considerable surprise
over the state by the facts brought
out in the recent investigation of the
legislative pay rolls concerning the
payment of persons who never rem
dered any actual service to the state.
The average man who works hard for
every cent he gets can hardly believe
it possible that the men who are elect
ed to the state legislature would
countenance such thing. yet it is
true.
Yet the last legislature is not the
only one which has done such things.
Former legislatures set the example
and established the precedent. but 1t
was probably never carried to the ex-
tent it was last winter. Heretofore.
too, it has commonly been in the SEN
ate that such things have happened.
Der of their families as their personal
clerks, but it is only occasionally that
such clerks do any actual work.
These facts have been published time
and again, but they have never been
impressed upon the public mind as
they have recently. Since the recent
agitation has been in progress the
State Journal has been in receipt of a
number of letters of which the follow
ing is a sample:
Dodge City, Nov. 20, 1903
ITO the Editor of the State Journal:
Il have just been informed by Hon.
Kearny county, that DR.. r. G. Men
denhall, representative from Lynn
county, had a clerk during the meeting
last winter who drew $3.50 for salary,
and never served one mipute-never
was in Toreka one minute at all. He
CTipron) saw him get the warrant and
get the money for it. Is this possible?
&C. F. HELM
Other persons have written asking
similar questions about other instances.
Probably no one knows just how much
work each employe did except the en-
ploye himself and perhaps the man re-
sponsible for his appointment. Such
occurrences as the one cited are not only
possible, however, but numerous in
stances are known where the employe
did no work and came to Topeka only
to draw his pay and perhaps watch the
legislature for few days.
Many of the committees which were
allowed clerks had no possible use for
them during the entire session. In
many instances the clerks of commit
tees had no work that the chairman or
some member of the committee could
not have performed just as well. A few
committees needed not only a clerk but
a stenographer or two as well, but they
were very few.
The practice of allowing each senator
a personal clerk is also reprehenSlble
practice. To be sure. most senators have
considerable correspondence to attend
to, but their clerks do not look after it
as the senators generally have to give
it their personal attention.
Then, of course there is no defense
for either house having thirty or forty
doorkeepers, or sergeants- alarms, Oh
janitors. A considerable force is neces-
sary to expedite business at times, but
both houses could have got along just
as we'll with one-third the number they
had last winter.
The usual defense of why supposedly
honest men allow such things to be done