The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-03-30
uIHuVEO N U VteHvls
Private Charities Bill Source of
Many Protests.
Far Reaching Effect of Measure
a Surprise.
MR.. MALONE EXPLAINS
Tells How Measure Was Rail-
rOaded in House.
Made Intellectual Attempt to
Block 1t.
LR. MALONE EXPLAINS

The protests and discussions of the
bill passed by the legislature and Civ
ing the. board of control supervision
over private charities in Kansas are
coming in thick and fast. The bill re-
quires that all charitable or benevolent
associations must be Incorporated and
that the officers must make showing
TO the board of control as to the reli-
ability of the officers and what the as
ISOLATION proposes to do in charitable
work. A certificate allowing the Off
GERS or agents to solicit funds may be
issued but the board, unless it is astis-
fed that the purposes of the organiza-
ton are legitimate need not Issue the
certificate and there is a heavy penalty
attached for soliciting funds without
the certificate
The bill was drawn by ]. E. How
ard, of Wichita. and introduced by
Senator Stewart, of Sedgwick county
It was planned to catch several associ-
atoms which are said to be soliciting
funds about the state for the support
of the association. when in reality the
money is used to support two or three
individuals who run the association for
their own benefit. The bill went
through the senate without any trou-
BILE and it arrived in the house of rep
resentatives late in the session and was
passed when probably less than half
a dozen men knew its import
James Malone, representative from
Rawlins county. knew what the bill
meant but he was unable to get his
protest heard by everyone or the bill
probably would have been amended. In
a letter to the State Journal, Mr.. Ma
lone says:
I'm your March 22d issue of the
State Journal speaking of senate bill
295, you say it has just been discovered
what far reaching effect this law will
have 1 only wish to call your atten-
ton to the fact that the house was
made acquainted with the dangerous
provisions of this bill. The bill was
never threshed out in committee Of the
whole, but put upon third reading sub
dect to amendment and debate and put
in a bulk roll call with other bills. to
which I objected, I opposed the meas
ure and voted against it. The following
morning after the bill had passed, I
moved a reconSiderat of the vote by
which it passed and in support of that
motion said in part: L do not ques-
ton the motives of the author of the
bill. but in the effort to curb the fake
solicitors and snide money gatherers.
they have struck a dangerous blow at
our charitable benevolent, and religi-
Gus institutions of the state
Il called attention to the fact that
the bill as written was entirely too
far reaching, and the arbitrary power
given to the board Of control, was more
power than any one board should have
over institutions which the state
should not control. and that the bill
should be rewritten so it would have
the desired results and not effect our
legitimate institutions
And to make my remarks more eff
fective I called attention to the fact
that only a short time before the house
had cut those charitable institutions off
from state aid, denied them assistance,
not only refused to assist them, but by