The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-11-14

ton to this, 1t placed Speaker Pringle
In very embarrassing position, as the
journal shows that he swore in Sid
Brakeman, when Brakeman never took
the oath at all. Mr.. Knapp's statement
Is LoilOWs:
Each time the chief doorkeeper or
sergeant-at-arms submitted a list of
appointees and they were confirmed by
the house. the oaths were all given in
blank to Mr.. Mct arland or Mr.. Cave
to give to the Individual appointees to
sign and be sworn in by the speaker
and returned to our office. When they
returned them, some were handed to
Mr.. Mason, some to Mr.. Fry, some to
Mrs. Parks, the bookkeeper, some to
me, and some to the first man they
came to in our office. In this mixup
some twelve or fifteen oaths were lost
and never reached my hands. When 1
was checking up the journals at the
close OF the session / ascertained that
these oaths were not to be found and
asked Mr.. Mason what to do about it.
He suggested that we check the oaths
up with the index pay roll kept by the
bookkeeper, and wherever name ap-
peared on the pay roll and I was shy
the original oath, it was evidently sim
ply lost, and that we supply them so
that the printed journal would show
the employees properly sworn in. This
was done. There was no attempt made
to disguise the writing or initiate sig
natures. but straight copy was in
serted, and there never was, to my
knowledge, an oath inserted where it
was not our belief that the employee
had been duly sworn in by the
speaker
The oaths which were submitted in
the journal are in the names of the fol-
lowing: j. T. James, speakers door
keeper; E. F. Rieman. copy clerk; c. T.
Schneider, docket clerk; H E. Waggen-
er, assistant doorkeeper; Mat Berger,
assistant janitor; D. f. Perkins, JAM
tor; Thomas Dillon, Janitor; James
Waugh assistant sergeant-at-arms; BID
Cora Shields, assistant sergeant-at-
arms; George K. Croker, assistant
seEgeant-at-arms: George Geihler, clerk
committee on employees.
The most of these are known to have
been bona fide employees of the house,
hut Riakeman was not and some others
may not have been. 1t was several
months between the close or the legls-
lature and the publicatio of the jour-
nal. and a little correspondence would
have made certain whether or not these
persons had ever taken the oath. George
K Crooker is now with the drug store
just north of the Copeland hotel ms
oath shows that he was an assistant
sergeant-at-arms while his voucher IN IN
dicates that he was doorkeeper, whlle
Mr.. Croker thinks he was clerk
Chief Clerk Mason has made the fol-
lowing statement regarding the Blake
man affair:
Brakeman was never sworn in OF
drew a voucher. Blakeman's name was
handed in by the committee and he was
placed on the pay rolls ana vouchers
drawn for him. Later Mr.. BRANDON
asked me to cancel the vouchers which
was done. The oath of Office that is pur-
ported to be Blakeman's was done IN
this way: Mr.. Knapp informs me that
at close Of session he was snort sone
original oaths and I told him TO Jake
the list as handed In and supply .ae1 ~.
by copies. The stubs of my voucher
book were left in Topeka in my once
and all undelivered vouchers in the aud
itor's office"
Judge George K Barker, of Lawrence,
who was once speaker himself ana W V4
| Pringle'S opponent 1or the plaee 1921
winter, says:
II am not inclined to critieise Speaker
Pringle for any scandal that mas oeVeA-
! oped in the vouchers OF employs.
/ know how hard it is for the speaker ~, ~
| keen track of everything, espeelaily
when he is a new member himself Ine
sneaker has to depend upon the chleL
/ clerk or some of his assistants l KNOW
prick Mason and believe he Woulo not
countenance anything dishonest, elther-
on, convinced that if there was any
crookedness it was without the Know
edge of either Speaker Pringle or Chlel
Clerk Mason.
! Any money which has been drawn
/ from the state treasury AAAC6~~A4S -
NOT made good will have to be put up
by some one. The state officials ais SEN ZEE n,
to be agreed as to that. In spea 4Idi1s,
/ Of this subject State Treasurer hellS
said:
81 don't know who would stand the
loss. but ii would probably fall upon
/ the auditors office or my Office lnS
state would be entitled to the money 3l y .
! 1T has never been the custom in the
+reasurer's office to require legislative
employees to be Identified" said Assist
ant state Treasurer Richie, who has
been in the Office for many years;
I'VE have always taken it for granted
that the man who presented a warrant
for payment was entitled to IT, FIRST
islative officials: next, he would have
to present that voucher to the state
auditor to get his warrant Then ne
would come to our Office and get his
pay We figured that when he got his
voucher from the legislature and his
warrant from the auditor he was en-
titled to it. and paid him. If we were
to attempt to have all the Legislative
! during the session