The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-10-17


imously adopted by the joint commit
had voted? What Influenced you to
change your mind between the time
that you voted for this amendment and
the time you made up your mind to
suppress it? Did you not then know
that you had no authority to change or
modify the action of the committee of
thirty-five? I can well see how in the
rush and excitement, this particular
amendment might have been omitted
by mistake, but by your speech on the
floor of the senate, you are estopped
from pleading mistake. 1t has always
been q mystery to me why you did It,
You are a good lawyer and you knew
you had no lawful right to do it. You
have had great experience as a leg1s-
lator and no one will believe you did
it ignorantly-the record shows you did
it. You have admitted you did it in
tentionally and deliberately.
Now my dear senator, won't you be
kind enough to tell the people of Kan
sas why you so juggled with this
amendment? I feel there must be some
good reason for such an unprecedented
act on your part.
you say Mr. Bevington, one of the
good friends of Mr. Leland, who was
opposing the bill, moved that the
house direct it's conferees to insist upon
the adoption of the Francis amend
ment and this was agreed to-. 1t APP
pears. therefore, ltldL Oh TWO OCteAotCI4f'
at least the house insisted by unan-
imous vote upon the adoption Of The
Francis amendment. You state that all
your differences had been harnonized
when the house made demand for the
Francis amendment understand
that the conferees of the senate (of
which You were one1 and of the rouse
had agreed upon everything, and that
promptly agreed to the houses de-
mand, provided that the Francis
amendment should be changed so as TO
permit the treasurer to draw the money
from the counties monthly instead OF
the auditor. as provided by the Fran
ciz bill
Now, my dear senator. when you
wrote the above did you have before
you the Francis amendment? Ie you
did, don't you know that the ar1eHd-
ment does not contain any such pro-
Vision2 1t provides among other things
that Immediately after making such
appOrtionment the auditor shall draw
his warrant on the county treasurer in
favor of the state treasurer for the
amount so apportioned with exchange,
and shall charge the state treasurer
with the amount of such warrants and
credit the several counties with The
same Why did you make the state
ment that the Francis amendmen1 au
thorized the auditor to draw the money
instead of the treasurer, when YOU
must have known that that amendlne nt
SllIBly authorized In6 duOlIOT 10 OIdW
his warrant in favor of the treasurer
VIII you be kind enough to point out
any clause of the Francis amen 1ment
that authorized or permitted the au-
ditor to draw any money from the
county treaSurers?
i Don't you think that your action in
attempting to mislead and deceive the
people needs some little explanarion
at your hands?
You further say that as the treas
urer is the constitutional custodian of
state funds, gives large bond for their
custody, that it was unfair and absurd
to place their control in the hands of
the auditor, instead of the treasurer,
that this is the exact fact as shown by
the house journal, page 1881, when on
March IL, Mr.. Nation stated that the
senate conferees were willing to accept
the Francis amendment provided that
the constitutional function of drawing
the money and caring for it were left
with the state treasurer. With all due
respect to your veracity, permit me to
say that the house journal makes no
such statement. and that Mr.. Nation
made no such statement in his report.
His exact language as contained in that
report is as follows:
The conferees on the part of the
senate agreed that if the words state
auditor in the Francis amendment con-
corning state deposits, be changed in
each case to state treasurer that they
would agree Nothing was said by Mr.
ton of the treasurer to draw and care
for the state funds
There is an admission on your part.
however that you would agree to any
kind of an old tax BILL if you could get
rid of the Francis amendment. You
now fall back on the constitution. Did
you not know that the constitution does
not make any provision for drawing
and caring for state money? If il does,
point out the section or the paragraph
that makes such provision. If it does
not. why do YOU misstate the facts?
Your communication was for the pur-
pose of enlightening the people and
stating the facts to them. Please tell
me why it was unfair and absurd to
relieve the treasurer from the burden
and responsibility of drawing and car
ing for state funds Why was it un-
fair? Was it unfair in the sense that
it deprived the state treasurer of the
use of public funds for private gain? Is
that what you mean by saying it was
funfair?'
do you not know that the law of
this state provides that the treasurer
shall be required to keep safely in the
state treasury, without loaning, using,
or depositing in banks or elsewhere, all
public moneys of whatsoever character
paid into such treasury, or otherwise.
and that at any time placed in his pos
session and custody as state treasurer,
till the same is ordered by the proper
department or officer of the state gov
~ DG lIduSleIIeQ VI pdlQ Oul
according to law, and when such orders
/ for the transfer or payment are re-
ceived, faithfully and promptly to make
I the same as directed, and also to do
and perform all other duties as state
treasurer which may be imposed by
law and that it also provides that If
any state treasurer shall convert to his
own use or shall deposit with
any company. corporation or Individual
any portion of the public money, or
any other fund, property, bonds, secu-
rites. assets or effects of any kind. re-
ceived, controlled or held by him for
safe keeping. transfer or disbursement