Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1919-07-30
TO THE VOTERS on
MADISON COUNTY

In the 1913 session of the Gen
eral Assembly of which l was a
member in pursuance to pledges
made in the Democratic plat
form on which the Democratic
State ticket was elected, the
General Assembly appointed a
committee known as the Probe
Committee, composed of three
members of the Senate and five
from the House, to investigate
and report back to the General
Assembly what offices and the
persons holding said offices were
useless and could be dispensed
with. This committee of which
l was member made thorough
investigation of all the state
Offices and found that there were
a number of men and women
holding Office and drawing large
salaries and doing practically
nothing to earn them, and so re-
Iported to the General Assembly
in a report covering thirty pages
A copy of said report can be
Seen at my office.
Among the departments in
vestigated was the State In
surance Board, composed of the
following persons and the salary
paid to each: N. O. Gray,
$1,000; H. H. Colyer, $1,000; C.
F. Thomas, $780,. Eli Brown,
$1,000; C. F. Mclaughlin, ST.
200; H. F. Harris, 81, 500; Noble
Harris, $1,5OO; E. Demunkin,
81, 500; Maria Brady, $1,000; S.
Montgomery, $l,5oo; J. Hudson,
The above is only one of a
number of the departments in
vestigated and abolished or COM
bined, thereby saving a large
sum of money to the state. The
committee said in it's report,
I'VE find that the State Insur-
ance Commission, the State In
surance Board, and, the Hotel
Inspector are in reality engaged
in the same line of work and
that there is no excuse. for div
iding the work under these heads
and thereby increasing the num-
Der Of offices and multiplying the
expense of operating them" .
In order to carry out the
recommendation of the Probe
Committee the General Assem-
bly, enacted a law, chapter 38,
act 1918, abolishing the Insur-
ance Board and creating the
office of Superintendent of Fire
Insurance at a salary of $1,000,
one man to do the work that it
took ten to do and saving some
thing like $4,000 to the state,
and providing that the insurance
companies should continue to
pay the same money and the
residue to go into the general
funds of the state. Great pres
sure was used to induce me to
vote against this law but l
could not be swerved from what
l considered my duty to all
the people and voted for it, and
may | pause here, to say | would
so vote today, if the opportuni
ty comes to me again.
A suit was filed by Mr.. Colyer,
one of the men that lost his
$4,000 job, and the Court of Ap-
peals upheld the law abolishing
useless offices and there are a
number of other offices that
should be abolished and | will
work to that end if | am re-
elected.
I wish to say a word in re
gard to the effort being made to
induce the farmer to vote against
me The 1918 session of the
Legislature enacted several laws
for the benefit of the farmer
and | supported all of them, for
/ realize that the farmer must
be protected and be successful
and prosperous in order that
the rest of us may be successful.
Why was he not thinking of the
farmer when Mr.. Colyer was
using every effort he could to get
two prominent attorneys of the
Richmond bar to run against me,
did he want a farmer in the
Legislature, or did he want to
get even with me for supporting
a bill to abolish useless offices?
Unhappy is he who knows the
right
But for it, is afraid to fight;
But worse is he who sides with
wrong
Because he knows the foe is
strong.