U NIVER5 ITY Of ILLINOIS 329.M P6\p Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. University of Illinois Library p - Swrey ' POPULIST HAND- FOR KANSAS. A COMPILATION FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES OF SOME FACTS FOR USE IN SUC- CEEDING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. WITH" NOTES. VINCENT BROS. PUBLISHING COMPANY, PUBLISHERS, INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 1891. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1891, By C. VINCENT, In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. * i Press of The Hamilton Printing Co., Topeka, Kansas. / T-e&~ Preface. The immediate cause which led to the political upheaval in Kansas in 1890 appeared to be the successful rebellion of independent Republicans, assisted by the Union Labor party and Democrats, in Cowley county in 1889, against the intolerable dictation of W. P. Hackney, E. P. Greer, et al. t the county “political bosses.” The real cause, however, lies deeper than this sur- face indication would suggest. The various reform or third parties that have agitated political affairs during the period since 1874 have all been parties having “ ideas ” to present, but it seems that they all failed in so presenting their principles as to secure general acceptance. During these years a constant agitation has been kept up that has resulted in a better education concerning political methods and governmental systems than even the friends of reform were aware of. In the campaign of 1888, the Union Labor party was more than usually aggressive, and Chapter II of this volume will show to what desperate straits the Republican managers were reduced in order to retain control of the State government. The whole State and nation were so shocked by the “ Coffey ville Dynamite Outrage” as to awaken.in the most conservative of men a feeling of anxiety for the future, and a dread of what unchecked political greed and despotism might produce. Thus rudely shaken with vague fears, the public mind was in excellent condition to seek political information. Just prior to this time there came to Cowley county an organizer of the Farmers’ Alliance. He did not meet with flattering success until after the close of the exciting , campaign of 1888. In the following winter months, the protest against existing conditions, po- litical and social, took shape in the rapid organization of the Farmers’ Alliance, purely as a means of education. A thoroughly - informed people cannot be enslaved, nor kept in slavery long after they become educated concerning the means used to bind them. ^ The education furnished in Alliance halls stimulated the latent energies of the rural classes, general reading became more universal, all available sources of information were utilized, and gradually the masses realized that cunning greed had kept country and city arrayed against ' > each other, though many of their interests are common. This division rendered them an easy "V prey to the political despot and party “boss.” Once realizing the real condition, they laid aside old political affiliations, as one would lay aside an old coat, (and with as few regrets,) donned the new role of managing their own political affairs, and they propose to continue IN THE BUSINESS. This volume is intended to present some assistance to this desirable end, and though entirely different from any book ever before published, the changed determination of the people has created the demand it is intended to fill — it being a condensed compendium, not so much of political statistical information as it is of the means of defensive and offensive political war- fare. This is rendered necessary on account of the unscrupulous methods used by the Repub- lican campaign managers, as instanced in the “ Hutchinson forged resolutions,” the so-called “Cloud county resolutions,” the persistent misrepresentation and vilification of leading pa- triots by the*entire Republican press, not to mention the villainous conspiracy of 1888, the farcical impeachment trial of Judge Botkin, and its culmination in the assassination of Col. S. N. Wood. If it shall assist “The People” in the defense of their homes, the work intended for this volume will* be accomplished. VINCENT BROS. \ I I 9858 Table of Contents. I. — Pakty Platfobms Partial list of bills passed by the People’s House, and killed in the Senate. — Protest of M. W. Cobun. — People’s Manifesto. — Mr. Rogers’s reply to Senator Buchan. — House bill No. 743, with comparative tables, as follows : Kansas distance schedule of reasonable maximum rates. Table I. — Mileage, taken from Railroad Commissioners’ Report for Kansas, 1890. Table I-A. — Mileage, taken from Railroad Commissioners’ Report for Iowa, 1889. Table II. — Freight earnings — Kansas Railroad Commissioners’ Rep., June 30, 1890. Table II-A. — Freight earnings — Iowa Railroad Commissioners’ Rep., June 30,1889. Table III. — Freight earnings per ton mile and per train mile. Table III-A. — Same for Iowa, Report of June 30, 1889. Table IV. — Shows number of employes, wages paid, cost for maintenance, etc. Table IV-A. — Same for Iowa, Report of June 30, 1889. Table Y. — Gross earnings — Kansas Report, June 30, 1890. Table Y-A. — Gross earnings — Iowa Report, June 30, 1889. Table YI. — Operating expenses — Kansas Report, June 30, 1890. Table YI-A. — Operating expenses — Iowa Report, June 30,1889. Table VII. — Railroad Commissioners’ reasonable tariff schedule and distances. Table VIII. — Existing railroad tariff rates and distances. Table IX. — Reasonable maximum freight rates — House bill No. 743. Summary of Tables VII, VIII, and IX. — Condensed summary, by counties. — Com- parison of rates paid in Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas. — State printing. II. — The Dynamite Conspieacy. . Introduction. — Senator Kimball’s forgery. — His larceny of a Senatorial seat. — The four theories. — Report of whole committee. — Report of Republican Members. — Diagram of Henrie’s home. — Report of Populist members. — Lee Jones’s evidence. — Greer’s cross-examination. — Democratic report. — Carroll and Mohler careless and indifferent. — Judge H. G. Webb’s review. — Appendix — Henrie’s connection with the Labor Bureau; they “ had to” take him, and they “ have to” keep him. III. — The Botkin Investigation and Impeachment Tbial Organization of the court. — Political statistics. — Relative strength of parties, by sen- atorial districts. — Thirty-second Judicial District. — Why organized. — Impeachment not a Populist movement. — Originated and pushed by Republicans. — Five petitions, with names of petitioners.— Resolution providing for investigation.— Officious in- terference by members of the Senate. — Report of committee. — Botkin tries to bank- rupt the State for fees to his witnesses. — A lawyer fee to be presented. — Quorum. — Demurrer in which Botkin admits the truth of all the charges against him.— Botkin’s own witnesses testify to his drunkenness. — Twenty-three Senators eat their own words “ for the good of the party.” — Horrible drunkenness and shocking blasphemy. — Illegal arrest of American citizens.— Botkin perjures himself to get men in his power.— Robbery of Springfield. — A receiver appointed to bring the money nearer the court. — Hackney a partner in the theft. — Final votes. — Short review of coun- sels’ argument. — Douglass’s arraignment of Botkin. — Hackney’s abuse. IV. — Political Methods Hutchinson forged resolutions. — Affidavits. — Letters. — Soldiers’ statement. — Cloud county resolutions. — Attempt to intimidate Chairman Campbell. — Booth’s record. — . Age-of-consent bill, and vote. V. — Moktgaged Indebtedness Of Miami, Lyon, Marshall, Sedgwick, Harper, Marion and Pratt counties. — Interest drain. — The Sub-Treasury system : The plan ; its constitutionality. — Extracts from “ Report of United States Pacific Railway Commission : ” Astounding thievery ; per- jured officials ; watered stock; Huntington letters. — Populist newspapers ^n Kan- sas. — State official directory. CHAPTER I. THE LEGISLATURE OF 1891. In the campaign of 1890 there were five political parties in the field, and four tickets were voted upon at the fall election, viz.: (1) Republican, (2) Peo- ple’s, (3) Democratic-Republican-Resubmission (fusion), and the (4) Prohibi- tion tickets. Inasmuch as the real contest was between the Republican and People’s parties, we will omit much that might be interesting matter touching the latter two tickets and their supporters, and confine ourselves to the actors in the real contest. This will necessarily be somewhat abridged, but it is hoped that the important points will be presented with clearness and pre- cision. Accordingly we here print, in condensed form, the platforms presented by the parties in question. The People’s Party, last fall, in their platform, said: “First. We demand the abolition of national banks, and the substitution of legal-tender treasury notes, in lieu of national-bank notes, issued in sufficient volume to do the business of the country on a cash system, regulating the amount needed on a per capita basis, as the busi- ness of the country expands ; and that all money issued by the Government shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts, both public and private. “ Second . We demand the free and unlimited coinage of silver. “Third. We demand that Congress shall pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the deal- ing in futures, in all agricultural and mechanical productions. “ Fourth . We demand the passage of laws prohibiting alien ownership of land. “Fifth. We demand that taxation, national or State, shall not be used to build up one interest or class at the expense of another. We demand that all revenues, national, State, and county, shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the government, economically and honestly ad- ministered. J “Sixth. We demand that the means of communication and transportation shall be owned by and operated in the interests of the people, as in the United States postal system. “ Seventh . We demand such legislation as shall effectually prevent the extortion of usurious interest by any form or evasion of statutory provisions. “ Eighth . We demand such legislation as will provide for a reasonable stay of execution, in all cases, of foreclosures of mortgages on real estate, and a reasonable extension of time before the confirmation of sheriffs’ sales. “Ninth. We demand such legislation as will effectually prevent the organization of trusts and combines for the purpose of speculation in any of the products of labor or the necessities of life, or the transportation of the same. “Tenth. We demand the adjustment of salaries of public officials to correspond with existing financial conditions, the wages paid to other forms of labor, and the prevailing prices of the products of labor. 6 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. “ Eleventh. We demand the adoption of the Australian system of voting. 11 Twelfth. Labor is the beginning of progress, the formation of the world, and the laborer is entitled to a good living and a fair share of the profits which result from his labor. The use of labor-saving machinery should shorten the hours of toil, and inure to the benefit of the em- ployed equally with the employer.” The Republican platform said, concerning living issues: “ We favor such other legislation as may be necessary to insure an increase of the volume of currency, adequate to the growing demand of our trade, the volume of such currency to be regulated by the necessities of business. We are in favor of uniformity in text-books in all the schools of the State, and demand such legislation as shall procure, by contract or otherwise, the best standard books at the least possible cost. We are in favor of electing railroad com- missioners by a vote of the people, and we demand of the next Legislature that they confer upon the Board of Railroad Commissioners ample power to regulate freight and passenger rates. We are opposed to the system of free passes on railroads now in vogue in this State, by reason of which every railroad company is expected, as a matter of courtesy, to compliment all State officers, members of the Legislature, judges and other public officers with free transporta- tion over their respective lines, and we favor the suppression of this practice by proper legis- lation. We are in favor of legislation prohibiting the employment of children under the age of fourteen years in mines, factories, work-shops, or mercantile establishments. “ The next Legislature should so amend the laws relating to foreclosure and sale of real estate, under mortgage contract, as shall secure to the mortgagor the privilege of redeeming such real estate at any time within twelve months from date of such foreclosure sale, by the pay- ment of the judgment and of legal interest from date of sale to date of redemption.” Having above the platforms upon which both parties appeared before the people, we will now call attention to the following statement of bills passed by the People’s Representatives in good faith, endeavoring to promote the welfare of Kansas. The defeat of these measures by the Republican Senate proves the insincerity and hypocrisy of that party when it presented its reso- lutions in convention. It proves that the platform of the Republican party is made for the same purpose as the platform of a passenger car — to go in on, and when once inside, a notice stares you in the face, “No one allowed to stand on the platform.” The following bills are selected as passed in good faith by the Populists: [Not all these bills were introduced by Populists, and these are only a few, but enough to prove the sincerity of the People’s Party.] By Mr. Douglass: House bill No. 1, An act prescribing penalty for the ac- ceptance of bribes. Passed March 6; see House Jour. p. 942-3. Reported to the Senate same afternoon; see Senate Jour. p. 705; never acted upon. Also, House bill No. 2, An act to prohibit the corrupt use of money, and corrupt practices at elections. Passed February 17; House Jour. p. 480; Heber (Rep.) voting no. Reported to Senate same day; Senate Jour, p 357; favorably reported by Committee on Elections, p. 457, but never called up for action. By Brown of Harvey: House bill No. 17, An act prohibiting railroad com- LEGISLATURE OF 1891. 7 panies from employing or using private armed detective force during railroad strikes or other disputes arising .between such railroad companies and their employes, and providing a penalty for the violation thereof. Passed February 8; House Jour. p. 268; Pierson of Allen and Seaton (Reps.) voting no. Mes- saged to Senate following day; Senate Jour. p. 223; favorably reported by Committee on Judiciary, p. 486, but never called up. By Mr. Showalter: House bill No. 21, An act relating to the redemption of lands sold for taxes, and to amend the tax laws of 1876, and chapter 43 of the Laws of 1879. Passed February 25; House Jour. p. 657. Messaged to Senate same day; Senate Jour, p.485; Senator Harkness, from Committee on Assess- ment and Taxation, reported in favor of indefinite postponement; p. 555. By Mr. Howard: House bill No. 61, An act to protect counties, cities and townships against the illegal or fraudulent acts of their officers. Passed Feb- ruary 13; House J our. p. 439. Messaged to Senate following day ; Senate J our. p. 334; read twice, and allowed to die. Also, House bill No. 62, An act relating to chattel mortgages and liens on personal property, and amendatory of chapter 68 of the General Statutes. Passed February 3; House Jour. p. 268. Messaged to the Senate following day; Senate Jour. p. 223; killed by committee; Senate Jour. p. 621. By Mr. Doolittle; House bill No. 69, An act amendatory to the code of civil procedure, in relation to the sale of real estate. Passed February 12; House Jour. p. 409. Messaged to Senate Feb. 14; Senate Jour. p. 334; read twice, and allowed to die. By Mr. Yandeventer: House bill No. 103, An act to prohibit subscription of stock or voting of bonds for the construction of railroads. Passed March 5; House Jour. p. 915. Messaged to Senate March 6; Senate Jour. p. 696; never called up. How the Miners were Snubbed. By Mr. Reed: House bill No. 120, An act to regulate the weight of coal at the mines. Passed February 3; House Jour. p. 266. Messaged to Senate following day; Senate Jour. p. 223. By reference to House Journal, page 982, it will appear that House bill No. 120 passed the Senate and was reported back to the House, but a careful ex- amination of the Senate Journal does not reveal any action by that body. If the Senate passed the bill, the records of that body fail to show it, and if it did not pass, how does Senate Clerk Stacey account for its being included in the list of bills messaged by him to the House as being passed? By Mr. Maddox: House bill No. 125, An act to amend chapter 131, Session Laws of 1885, of an act entitled, “An act providing for the organization and control of mutual life insurance associations in this State,” approved March 7, 1885, and to repeal said sections. Passed February 26; House Jour. p. 707 ; 8 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . read twice, and recommended for passage; Senate Jour. p. 573; but allowed to die. . Austkalian Ballot System Killed. By Mr. G. E. Smith: House bill No. 126, An act to provide for printing and distributing ballots at public expense, and to regulate voting at State and city elections. ^ Passed, unanimously, Feb- ruary 19; House Jour. p. 544. Messaged to Senate February 23; Senate Jour, p. 430; read twice, and referred to Committee on Elections, which reported it favorably, but it was allowed to die, not being called up for action; Senate Jour. p. 633. By Mr. Elder: House bill No. 132, An act to secure uniformity of listing taxation of bonds, mortgages, notes, and other securities for indebtedness. Passed February 9; House Jour. p. 353; 76 for and 19 against the bill. Sen- ate Committee on Judiciary recommended indefinite postponement, because of certain alleged imperfections, yet made no effort to correct those imper- fections, or pass any bill to meet the demands. of the people on this subject; Senate Jour. p. 508. Also, House bill No. 133, An act to amend section 80 of chapter 93 of the Session Laws of 1871, being an act entitled “An act to establish an insurance department in the State of Kansas, and to regulate the companies doing business therein.” Passed February 23; House Jour. p. 604. Messaged to Senate the following day; Senate Jour, p.456; read twice, and referred to Committee on Insurance, where it died in a pigeon-hole; Senate Jour. p. 498. Also, House bill No. 134, An act relating to the rate of interest to be charged for the use of money, prohibiting usury, and providing penalties for the violation thereof, and for repealing chapter 164 of the Laws of 1889, ap- proved March 1, 1889. Passed February 18; House Jour, p.522. Messaged to Senate the following day; Senate Jour. p. 401; read twice, and referred to Committee on Judicary, and treated in same manner as House bill 132 above; Senate Jour. p. 531. Also, House bill No. 139, An act to provide for an inspector of hogs and cattle offered for sale in the stock yards located within the county of Wyan- dotte, defining his duties and term of office, and removing all restriction in the trade of dead hogs and cattle therein. Passed March 4; House Jour. p.873. Messaged to the Senate the following day; Senate Jour. p. 652; re- ferred to Committee on Agriculture (Roe, chairman), which reported a rec- ommendation to refer to committee of the whole; Senate Jour. p. 802; here it died. By Mr. Smith of Neosho: House bill No. 145, An act limiting the powers of counties, townships and cities to borrow money to create indebtedness. Passed March 3, 85 to 0; House Jour. p. 816. Messaged to Senate same day; LEGISLATURE OF 1891. 9 Senate Jour. p. 623; referred to Committee on Assessment and Taxation (Harkness, chairman), which reported a recommendation to refer to com- mittee of the whole; Senate Jour, p.805; here it died. By Mr. Maddox: House bill No. 212, An act to prohibit the waiver of the appraisement and stay laws, and laws of procedure, in suits for the collection of debts, and to repeal chapter 66 of the Session Laws of 1872. Passed Feb- ruary 27, 74 to 0; House Jour. p. 753. Messaged to Senate March 3; Senate Jour. p. 594; referred to Judiciary Committee (Gillett, chairman), and by that committee favorably recommended for passage March 6, (Senate Jour. p. 713,) but allowed to die without being called up for a vote. By Mr. Brown of Wilson: House bill No. 225, An act to protect hotel and boarding-house keepers. Passed February 13, 76 to 26; House Jour. p. 437. Messaged to the Senate the following day; Senate Jour, p.335; referred to Judiciary Committee (Gillett, chairman), and by them reported with recom- mendation to refer to committee of the whole; Senate Jour. p. 773; here it died. By Mr. Howard: House bill No. 264, An act requiring all public, private and municipal corporations existing under the laws of this State to pay their em- ployes their salaries and wages weekly in lawful money, and providing penal- ties for the violation of the provisions of this act. Passed March 7, 85 to 4; House Jour, p.979. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour, p.735; never heard from again. By Mr. Soupene: House bill No. 279, An act conferring upon women the right to vote and hold office. Passed February 18, 69 to 34, (House Jour, p. 527,) over the protest of Speaker Elder and fifteen others of all parties. Messaged to the Senate the following day; Senate Jour. p. 409; indefinitely postponed March 2, on motion of Gillett; Senate Jour. p. 574. By Mr. Whittington: House bill No. 339, An act to abolish the State Board of Pardons. Passed Ma /eh 2, 64 to 33; House Jour. p. 790. Messaged to the Senate following day; Senate Jour, p.594; referred to Judiciary Committee (Gillett, chairman), which reported to refer to committee of the whole; Sen- ate Jour, p.773; here it died. By Judiciary Committee: House bill No. 436 (substitute for House bill No. 33), An act for the prevention of lotteries. Passed February 20, 81 to 0; House Jour. p. 578. Messaged to the Senate February 23; Senate Jour. p. 429; Sen- ate never took any farther notice of this bill; Senate Jour. p. 954 (this being the page of index on which history of this bill is recorded). By Mr. Doolittle: House bill No. 348, An act to remove political disabilities. Passed February 13, 108 to 3; House Jour. p. 440. Messaged to the Senate fol- lowing day; Senate Jour, p.335; referred to Committee on Judiciary (Gillett, chairman), which reported in favor of indefinite postponement; Senate Jour. 10 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . p. 622. When it appears that such violent Republican partisans in the House as Rice of Bourbon, Heber, Brown of Harvey, Reeder, Nixon, Seaton, besides such fair men as Douglass, all voted for this bill, the brutality of its slaughter in the Senate becomes the more apparent. Also, House bill No. 479 (substitute for House bill No. 316), by Judiciary Committee: An act to protect the interests of debtors in the foreclosure of mortgages and other contracts in writing. Passed February 26, 89 to 0; House Jour. p. 706. Messaged to Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 507; re- ferred to Judiciary Committee (Gillett, chairman); Senate Jour. p. 559. It found its grave in a Senate committee’s pigeon-hole. By Judiciary Committee : House bill No. 540, An act relating to mortgages and other liens upon real estate, providing for the enforcement thereof, and regulating the right of redemption therefrom. Passed February 12, 107 to 0 ; House Jour. p. 409. Messaged to Senate February 14 ; Senate Jour. p. 334 ; defeated in Senate March 6; Senate Jour. p. 707. On March 11, the House considered the amendments passed by the Senate, and concurred therein, 68 to 0; House Jour. p. 1115. On March 9, four days before adjournment, and while the appropriation bills were crowding for attention, the Senate struck out all after the enacting clause, and passed substitute too late for the House to act upon it; Senate Jour. p. 787. By Mr. Douglass : House bill No. 577, An act punishing drunkenness in public officials by forfeiture of office. Passed February 20, 81 to 0 ; House Jour. p. 577. Messaged to the Senate February 23 ; Senate Jour. p. 429 ; re- ferred to Committee on State Affairs (H. B. Kelly, chairman); recommended for passage March 9 ; Senate Jour. p. 805 ; but allowed to die without any ac- tion. By Mr. Stephens ( by request ) : House bill No. 604, An act authorizing school boards to procure national flags for use of schools. Passed March 6, 67 to 0; House Jour. p. 949. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 716; died without action; never read even once. By Mr. Doolittle: House bill No. 606, An act regulating the discharge of cor- poration employes, to prevent the “black-listing” of railroad employes, and providing penalties for a violation of this act. Passed March 5, 70 to 4; House Jour. p. 894. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 669; read the second time March 6, and referred to committee of the whole; Sen- ate Jour. p. 723; never called up, but allowed to die unnoticed. While this important bill was unheeded, on the same day the Senate found time to pass local or private bills for the city of Newton; county of Woodson; Grove town- ship, Reno county; change the name of a township; authorize voting of $8,000 of bonds in Lecompton township, Douglas county, and seven other bills similar in importance, besides two or three of some general utility. LEGISLATURE OF 1891. 11 By Mr. Stewart: House bill No. 692, An act to prevent the spread of cholera among swine. Passed March 3, 85 to 0; House Jour. p. 818. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour, p. 624; referred to Committee on Agriculture (Roe, chairman), and reported for indefinite postponement; Senate Jour. p. 802. By Mr. Neeley: House bill No. 693, An act to provide joint rates over con- necting lines of railroads in Kansas. Passed February 23, 85 to 0; House Jour, p. 614. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour, p.443; referred to Committee on Railroads (Kelley of Crawford, chairman), and by it reported favorably March 9; Senate Jour, p.805; died from lack of attention. By Mr. Fortney: House bill No. 696, An act concerning private corporations organized for profit; must file annual report with Secretary of State. Passed March 5, 72 to 2; House Jour. p. 908. Messaged to the Senate following day; Senate Jour. p. 696; never called up. By Rogers of Marion: House bill No. 698, An act authorizing the county treasurer of counties having less than twenty-five thousand inhabitants to de- posit public money in a bank, or banks, in the county; and to repeal chapter 189 of the Laws of 1889. Passed March 4, 81 to 15; House Jour. p. 836. Mes- saged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 628. When put upon its passage, Senator Kirkpatrick moved to strike out the enacting clause, which motion prevailed; Senate Jour. pp. 795-6. Railroad BIll Peremptorily Killed. By Committee on Railroads: House bill No. 707 (substitute for House bill No. 140), An act relating to railroads, to establish a Board of Railroad Commissioners, to prescribe maximum pas- senger rates, to prohibit passes on railroads, and to provide penalties, and for other purposes. Passed February 24, 82 to 26; House Jour. pp. 623-4. Mes- saged to the Senate March 3; Senate Jour. p. 624; referred to Committee on Railroads (Kelley of Crawford, chairman), March 5; Senate Jour. p. 651; re- ported back unfavorably March 9; Senate Jour. p. 805. By Committee on Education: Hoi^Se bill No. 712, An act to provide for a uniform series of school text- books, by publication or otherwise, and for the distribution thereof, repealing any act or portion thereof in conflict with this act. Passed February 24, 71 to 40; House Jour. p. 640. Messaged to the Senate the following day; Senate Jour. p. 469; on February 28, the bill was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Education (Moody, chairman); Senate Jour. p. 559; on March 10, Senator Moody, from above committee, reported back the bill with recommendation that it do not pass, for the reason that a better Senate bill, on the same subject, was passed and in possession of the House before this bill reached the Senate; Senate Jour, p. 832. Did “Age-of-Consent” Moody think people would take his word on a little 12 POPULIST BAND-BOOK. matter of this kind, and thus scatter abroad the impression that the House was engaged in jealous spite-work, and therefore that he was justified in re- taliating in a similar spirit? Now for the facts: House bill 712 passed the House February 24, and was messaged to the Sen- ate February 25; Senate Jour. p. 469. Senate bill 264 (on same subject) passed the Senate March 2, (Senate Jour, p.588,) and was messaged to the House March 3; House Jour. p. 802. Thus Senator Moody is convicted of placing a falsehood in his report to the amount of seven days, and conclu- sively proves that he was afraid to report against the bill on its merits, and took this cowardly method to stab the House, even in using falsehood to do it. By Mr. Scott : House bill No. 718, An act to compel railroad and other as- sessors to assess railroad property at its true value in money, and providing a penalty for violation thereof. Passed March 5, 80 to 8 ; House Jour. p. 896. Messaged to the Senate same day ; Senate Jour. p. 669 ; referred to Commit- tee on Assessment and Taxation (Harkness, chairman), and reported by him for reference to committee of the whole, March 9 ; Senate Jour. p. 805 ; here it died. Another Railroad Bill Slaughtered. By Committee on Railroads: House bill No. 743 (substitute for House bill No. 210), An act to regulate and estab- lish reasonable maximum charges for the transportation of freight on the different lines of railroads in the State of Kansas, and providing for a State Board of Railroad Commissioners, with general powers of supervision over the transportation lines within the State, and giving to such commissioners full power and authority to control, fix and regulate the charges and rates to be collected by railroad and transportation lines for carrying freight over such lines and roads in Kansas, and to prevent unjust and unreasonable discrimi- nations in such charges, and providing for the selection of such commission- ers, and the manner in which they shall be chosen, and prescribing their compensation and duties, and making appropriations to enforce this act. Passed February 26, 85 to 25; House Jour. p. 713. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 507; referred to Senate Committee on Railroads (Kelley of Crawford, chairman), on February 28, and by it reported unfavor- ably on March 9 ; Senate Jour. p. 806. By Mr. Elder : House bill No. 833, An act declaring gold and silver coin of the United States a legal tender for all debts within the State, and prohibit- ing contracts for gold payments. Passed March 7, 73 to 13; House Jour, p. 989. Messaged to the Senate same day; Senate Jour. p. 755; omitted men- tion in Senate index p. 964; never further noticed in the Senate. Mr. Elder introduced House bill No. 842, An act to abolish the Thirty-second Judicial District. Passed March 3, 67 to 30; House Jour, p.823. Messaged to Senate the following day; Senate Jour. p. 629. The object of this bill was LEGISLATURE OF 1891. 13 to get rid of Judge Botkin without the expense of $40,000 for an impeach- ment trial. The evidence all showed he was a disgrace to the State, and the abolition of his district was thought to be the shortest and cheapest way out of the matter. The Senate however, regardless of cost and with much high- sounding rhetoric about the guaranties of the constitution, decided to expend many thousand dollars in a mock trial (as the trial proved to be), only to re- tain in office a drunken debauchee, and convict themselves of being the most senseless partisans yet discovered. They refused to pass the above bill, March 6; Senate Jour. p. 711. In relation to Senate bill No. 268, or its substitute, providing for World’s Fair appropriation of $50,000, and appointment of commissioners for the same: Much time was spent over this bill, the Senate insisting on the selec- tion of commissioners in such a manner that a majority of them should be Re- publicans. The House insisted that the board should be chosen, three by the House (one to be a Democrat), and two by the Senate, but the Senate insisted that each branch choose two and the Governor appoint one; Senate Jour, p. 882. This was so as to insure a Republican majority on the board, which, for all purposes of reckless extravagance, would be as good as the entire board. The final vote in the House was taken on the proposition containing the pro- vision for the appointment of three by the House and two by the Senate. The vote stood, 75 for and 22 against. M. W. Cobun presented the following protest against its passage: When the doors of the treasury are once opened to fill the requirements of this bill, it is but reasonable to suppose that it will end with the expenditure of $100,000 or $150,000. Now, let us look the mattter squarely in the face, and ask ourselves the question: Is it wise, is it just or prudent to cast our votes for such a large appropriation, knowing as we do the condition of the people off whom it would come? The reputation of our State has suffered by the false and ma- licious misrepresentations of a partisan press and the representatives of moneyed rings. Banks and loan agents have written to Eastern loan companies the most willful misrepresentations; then published far and wide threatening letters, purporting to have come from them, that they would close their present loans and withdraw their capital from our State — to intimidate and coerce our people, whose only crime was that they dared to assert their constitutional rights, and hurl from power a party that had been false to its pledges. Let us look at the facts as they stand before us. We need not consume time to go back to past history to find them. We need only refer to the daily journals of this present Legislature. There you will see the indisputable evidence that the representatives of the Republican party on this floor have recorded their votes against every general measure intended by the majority for the relief of the people. Now, at the close of this session, after a Republican Senate has pigeon-holed all of our im- portant bills, they come to us beseeching us to vote away from our already burdened tax-payers this vast sum of money, to contradict and give the lie to what they have already published to the world against our people. I would say to the other branch of this Legislature, if you are so willing to impose this burden upon the people", it is but simple justice that you should do something for them in return : pass the bill relating to the foreclosure of mortgages; the bill preventing the taking of usury; the bill reducing the passenger and freight rates on our rail- roads ; the bill making silver a legal tender for all debts in this State. Do that, and we will 14 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. join hands with you in any enterprise to uphold the honor and increase the prosperity of our State. Who is it that are here lobbying in the interests of this bill? Is it the tillers of our soil? No; it is the place-hunters, the land and loan agents, already loaded down by past booms, and now seek to inaugurate another, to unload their depreciated securities. We, who represent the majority on this floor, come from among that class of people that pay more than their just proportion of the expenses of our State government; they pay tax on all they have; their property is all visible and cannot be concealed from the scrutiny of the assessors. They are not the holders of bank stocks, railroad stocks, or other bonds locked up in safes, whose locks and bolts will not yield, even to the solemn obligations of an oath. We come from a people that have to battle with drouths and hot winds; adverse seasons have driven them to the last emergency, to borrow money at ruinous rates of interest, which has eaten up their substance, and left them hopelessly in debt. We came here pledged to retrenchment and reform. Let us stand by our pledges to the end. I therefore vote “ No ” on this bill. M. W. Cobun. Following is the manifesto issued by the chairmen of the various House committees, upon the work accomplished, or attempted. [From the Nonconformist of March 26, 1891.] PEOPLE’S MANIFESTO. A Splendid Showing for the People’s Representatives. — The Republican Senate Called to Ac- count for Vetoing the People’s Will, and Blocking Needed Legislation. — Important Meas- ures Called for by Popular Demand Meet Their Death at the Hands of Republican Politicians in the Hold-Over Senate. To the People of the State of Kansas: Having closed our work in the Legis- lature, we, through our duly-appointed committee, submit the result of our labors to your consideration, firmly convinced that it will receive your ap- proval. The Legislature met January 13th, as provided by law. Hon. P. P. Elder was unanimously elected Speaker. The committees were at once appointed, and the House proceeded to business on the second day thereafter, with a celerity hitherto unknown in the history of this State, and were at work two days earlier than any prior Legislature. The Senate, elected two years ago last fall, with two or three exceptions was opposed to our party and the plat- form upon which we were elected. The Governor and executive departments of the State, with the exception of the Attorney General, were also in opposi- tion to us. No effort was spared by our opponents to divide and disorganize our party. We were told that the farmers could not and would not stick to- gether. The daily press, not only here in Topeka, but all over the State, with two honorable exceptions, were opposed to us. The first matter of importance was the election of State Printer. The Peo- ple’s candidate, E. H. Snow, of Ottawa, was elected on joint ballot, receiving PEOPLE'S MANIFESTO^ 15 101 votes. For years Mr. Snow has been advocating our principles, and was and is in full sympathy with our demands. The People’s Party, in conference, after hearing the claims of all candidates presented, decided on W. A. Peffer, editor of the Kansas Farmer, a man who largely contributed to the success of our party, for the high office of United States Senator, to succeed John J. In- galls, and he was elected, without a break in our ranks. The result itself was worth all the effort of our party last fall, as it marks a new era in the politics of this State, and indicates the grand success of the party in the nation in 1892. The schooled Republican politicians of the nation were gathered in Topeka, and our footsteps were dogged by “hired Hessians” at every turn, with offers of pelf and political honors, but without effect. We point to this with pride, as demonstrating that the chosen representatives of the People’s Party have proven the falsehood of the rule of the ring politician, that “every man has his price.” We found upon our statute books a large number of laws creating boards of commissioners, State agents, etc., which seemed to have been placed there for the express purpose of providing places for favorites, rather than for any benefit to the State; but we have found it impossible to repeal these laws, with the Senate and executive department making a bitter fight against abol- ishing these sinecures. An attempt was made on the part of the House, in good faith, and without any attempt to cripple any State institution, penal, charitable or educational, to reduce the expenses to something like an equality with the earnings of the average citizen of Kansas. This attempt was met by the Senate with an ab- solute refusal to consider any proposition which reduced the wages or salaries of employes of State institutions^which were under Republican management. We present hereafter a comparison of appropriations made two years ago and the appropriations made this session. The Senate insisted on higher appropriations, except in the proposition to appropriate $60,000 for the re- lief of the people in the western part of the State, who were suffering from the severe drouth of last year, and an appropriation of $115,000 to provide for the destitute insane, who have been for years past confined in the county jails in this State. The People’s Party of the House originated and passed the bill appropriating $60,000 for the relief of the western farmers of this State, which was defeated by the Senate. We have not forgotten that, during the drouth in eastern Kansas, in 1860, several northern State Legislatures ap- propriated large sums of money for the relief of the people; but when the People’s Party passed the bill in the House for the purpose of relieving west- ern Kansas from a similar infliction, the Senate discovered that all such leg- islation was unconstitutional. By amendment, insisted upon by the Senate, 16 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. the different counties in the western part of the State were made responsible for the distribution of seed grain sent to them, and the price thereof must be returned to the State treasury, while the recipients, in the eastern part of the State, of the bounties extended to them in 1860, refused, through their Re- publican Representatives and Senators, to assist one dollar in the relief of suffering in western Kansas. The Legislature of this session has not resulted in what we desired to ac- complish, nor in what the people would have had the right to expect from us had we been in power in all the branches of the State government. By and with the aid of the Senate, 473 acts were passed, and will become laws upon our statute books, among the most important of which is: Prohibit- ing alien ownership of land in Kansas, and providing for the sale of all lands owned by aliens, acquired after the date of this act, in from three to six years’ time, or upon the death of aliens holding previous to the enactment of this law. The following House bills were concurred in by the Senate, and are now a part of the laws of the State: To authorize the sale of alcohol by wholesale druggists and dealers in pho- tographers’ supplies, and for other purposes. Apportioning the State of Kansas into Senatorial and Representative dis- tricts. An act to abolish survivorship in joint tenancy. An act to establish an experimental station at the State University of Kansas, to promote and conduct experiments for the destruction of chinch-bugs by contagion or infection, and making an appropriation therefor. Requiring moneys coming into the hands of county treasurers in certain counties to be deposited in banks. For the continuance and maintenance of forestry stations. Act constituting eight hours a day’s work for all workingmen employed by the State, counties, cities, or townships. An act to regulate warehouses, the inspection, grading, weighing and hand- ling of grain. An act relating to the sale of real estate for delinquent taxes for such coun- ties as shall adopt the provisions of this act. Joint resolution recommending the calling of a convention to revise, amend or change the constitution of the State of Kansas. An act prohibiting combinations to prevent competition among persons engaged in buying or selling live stock, and to provide penalties therefor. The House Committee on Banks and Banking prepared a bill regulating and controlling all banks within the State of Kansas, and submitted it, not only to the leading bankers of Kansas, but of the West. The Senate had also pre- pared a bill regulating the banks of Kansas, but the House substituted for it PEOPLE'S MANIFESTO. 17 the House committee banking bill, and it was passed by an almost unanimous vote of the House, and by a large majority in the Senate. This bill will put an end to the era of “wild-cat” banking in Kansas. The following are some important bills that passed our House, but were de- feated by the Senate : After a careful examination, the House adopted the Iowa schedule <$f freights and fares, increasing them, however, nearly 20 per cent, above the Iowa rail- road rates, which was an average reduction of present Kansas rates of 13 per cent. This bill also provided that no more should be charged for a short haul than for a long one. It also provided for election of Railroad Commissioners by direct vote of the people, with power to change freight rates as conditions required. The Republican Senate refused to even consider this bill. The present Railroad Commissioners used their influence against the considera- tion of the bill, and showed that they were opposed to the people, and were the mere employes of corporations. On no subject that came before us was as persistent a fight made as on this transportation question. Every railroad attorney in the State was present, in addition to the railroad officials, and in order to show a spirit of fairness they were all allowed to come before the Committee on Railroads and show why freight rates should not be reduced. All the evidence was sifted, and after weeks of hard labor by the committee, the bill was formulated and presented to the House. The Republican minority fought the bill with all the weapons of parliamentary law, the oft-repeated tales of widows and orphans owning the watered stock on which Western producers and consumers are made to pay tribute were rehearsed, but our lines did not waver, and we sent it over to the Senate. This bill was intro- duced into the House on February 13, and referred to the committee of the whole. Owing to the fact that th^original bill got lost in the safe of the Re- publican State Printer, it was February 26 before this bill passed the House, but no effort was made to consider it in the Senate, in spite of the fact that eighteen days intervened before adjournment. Bills were also passed by the House reducing fares on railroads to 2i cents per mile, and prohibiting the issuing of free passes, and compelling railroads to furnish freight cars on five days’ notice. The Senate refused to even con- sider this measure. The House also passed a bill that, had it become a law, would have driven unscrupulous Shylocks who are robbing the people by a usurious interest of from 25 to 100 per cent, per annum out of the State, or forced them to be- come honest, law-abiding citizens, by loaning their money at a legal rate of 10 per cent. The bill provided for forfeiture of both principal and interest in case of usury, and is nearly a copy of the New York laws on this subject. The Senate Judiciary Committee killed this bill, on the ground that it would s \ 18 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. drive capital out of the State, thereby admitting there is no penalty on the statute books of the State, and that the borrower is wholly at the mercy of the lender. We passed an equity of redemption bill, giving to the mortgagor two years to redeem his home after foreclosure, making the property encumbered satisfy the mortgage, and no personal judgment. It reduced the cost of foreclosure, and would have acted as a stay law to existing contracts for two years at least. Governor Humphrey, in his famous “Gath” interview, said “that one firm of lawyers alone had 15,000 foreclosures.” It was to relieve this class of our State citizens, in danger of losing their homes, that the bill was passed, besides, with such a law on the statute books of every other State in the Union, with one exception, we thought that Kansas homes should have equal protection with those of other States. The promise of such a law has been made for at least eight years by the Republican party represented by the Senate, yet in the face of these facts the Senate amended the bill in every conceivable way that would hamper and kill its object, and then attached a clause that it should not apply to mortgages already given. They sent it back to us; we struck off the amendment, we repassed the bill, sent it back to the Senate, which refused to receive it on account of senatorial dignity, claiming it was outside the rules, and the groans of the oppressed must not be heeded at the expense of senatorial dignity. The bill setting aside a sale on account of an inadequate price and repealing the waiver of appraisement was introduced and passed in the Senate early in the session, and was known as the Mohler bill. It came down to the House, but before it could be reached on the calendar, the Senate changed its mind, from just what influence we are unable to state, recalled it, and made it a special order for April 1, virtually killing the bill, and making relief an “April fool” for every poor, mortgaged farmer and laborer in the State. It was a good bill, and would have protected our homes. A similar bill was introduced and passed in the House, and we sent it over to the Senate, and it died on their calendar, the change of heart they experienced when they withdrew their bill from the House having never left them. We also passed a law compelling the original mortgage to be brought into court in foreclosures instead of a copy, as is being done now. Hundreds of foreclosures have been made all over the State with copies that will cause liti- gation for years and insecure titles. Two judges have decided that under the old law this must be done, but the Supreme Court has never passed on the question, and in order to give immediate relief a bill was introduced and passed in the House, but it gave up its life in the Senate. The House also passed a bill making silver dollars and half-dollars legal tender for all debts contracted in the State, and declaring gold contracts null PEOPLE'S MANIFESTO. 19 and void. This bill was bitterly opposed by the Republicans in the House, on the theory that it would ruin our credit and drive capital out of our State, and the Senate refused to even consider it at all. We passed an assessment bill that would compel those persons who have been in the habit of concealing their notes and allowing the honest people and farmers of this State to pay their share of the taxes, and was a search warrant that would cause all taxable property to be listed. It failed to go on the statute book from a death stroke by the Senate. For the purity of the ballot we passed the law that has given such general satisfaction wherever tried, known as the Australian ballot bill, not only of our own platform but of the Republicans also. It went over to the Senate early in the session, but expired on the calendar. If the House had killed it we would have been charged with being unfriendly to a free ballot. As it is, we wish to be chari- table and let the people judge as to their motive. We appropriated $50,000 for the World’s Fair at Chicago, in 1893, and pro- vided that there should be five commissioners, to be elected as follows: Two by the Senate, two by the House, and one by the Democrats of the House. This we considered a fair distribution of managers, as the Republicans cast 116,000 votes, the People’s Party 108,000, and the Democrats about 60,000; but the Senate said: “We must have three out of five, or else Kansas will have to stay at home.” The Senate passed a bill which had attached to it a complete revision of the State Board of Agriculture of Kansas, and which provided for the election of said Board as a State officer. The Secretary was to be made a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Columbian exposition. Un- der the theory that such Secretary should be a member of said Board, the Senate absolutely refused to consider any World’s Fair appropriation which did not have the reorganization of the State Board of Agriculture as a condi- tion thereof. Until 11 o’clock the night before adjournment, when no quorum was in the House, no bill ever passed the Senate, or was ever considered in the Senate, which did not have those provisions attached. The following, in addition to the above, are some of the important bills passed by the House, which the Senate refused to pass: An act prescribing penalties for accepting bribes. Act to abolish the corrupt use of money and corrupt acts at elections. Relating to continuances in district courts. Prohibiting railroad companies from employing or using private armed detective forces during railroad strikes or other disturbances arising between such railroad companies and their employes, and providing penalties for the violation thereof. Relating to the redemption of lands sold for taxes, and amendatory to tax 20 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . law of 1876, chapter 43 of Laws of 1879, and reducing interest on the same to 10 per cent. Act with reference to the verdict of juries, and to amend section 286 of the code of civil procedure, being paragraph 4381 of the General Statutes of 1885, doing away with special findings. To protect counties, cities and townships against the illegal or fraudulent acts of their officers. To prohibit subscription of stock or voting bonds for the construction of railroads. To provide for the weekly payment of wages in lawful money of the United States. To amend section 8, chapter 93, Session Laws of 1871, being an act entitled “An act to establish an insurance department in the State of Kansas, and to regulate the companies doing business therein,” and to compel the payment of policies in full or the rebuilding of destroyed property. The attempt to rearrange and change the fees and salaries of county officers in the State resulted in the passage of two bills, one by each House, and the inability to agree. Owing to the conflicting interests at stake in the different counties of this State, the House, through its members of the conference com- mittee, agreed that each county should arrange and suggest to the committee the amount to be paid to each county officer, and after such report had been made to the committee, and the conference committee had agreed to accept it, and had reported the same to the two houses, the House promptly passed the conference committee bill, but the Senate refused to join therein, and the measure did not become a law. To provide for an inspector of hogs and cattle offered for sale at the stock yards located within the county of Wyandotte, defining his duties and tenure of office, and removing all restrictions in trade of dead hogs and cattle therein. Limiting the power of counties, townships and cities to borrow money and create indebtedness. To prohibit private banks from doing business in any other than the indi- vidual names of the proprietors, and providing penalties for the violation thereof. To prohibit counties, townships and cities from voting aid except for buildings, bridges, and school-houses. To destroy election returns after the expiration of five years. Conferring upon women the right to vote and hold office. An act for the prevention of lotteries. An act to abolish the State Board of Pardons. PEOPLE'S MANIFESTO. 21 An act to amend the code of civil procedure. This would have reduced the work of the Supreme Court one-half. To punish drunkenness in public offices by forfeiture of office. Regulating the discharge of corporation employes, to prevent black-listing of railroad employes, and to provide penalties for the violation thereof. To provide joint rates over connecting lines of railroad in Kansas. To authorize county treasurers of counties having less than 25,000 inhabi- tants to deposit public moneys in a bank or banks in the counties, and to re- peal chapter 189 of the Laws of 1889. To provide for a uniform series of school books, by publication or other- wise, and for the distribution thereof, repealing any acts or portions thereof in conflict with this act. This bill, so manifestly just and proper, and in the interest of the people, the Senate refused to pass. The appropriation for the next two years, while thousands of dollars lower than in the years past, has been swelled by necessary investigations and by the impeachment of one of the Republican district judges of the State. It became the duty of the present House, forced upon it by Republicans living in the Thirty-second Judicial District, to investigate charges of drunkenness, fraud, etc., preferred against Judge Theo. Botkin. The investigation resulted in the preferment of articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemean- ors. After the impeachment had been ordered by the House, we attempted to follow the recommendations of the Republican revision committee of the Senate to abolish the district in the judicial apportionment in Kansas, and at the same time relieve the State from the expense of the impeachment trial, and the bill was passed through the House abolishing the Thirty-second Judi- cial District. The Senate refused to even consider the bill, which would have saved the enormous expense of impeachment, and immediately organized as a court of impeachment. The expenses of the investigation and the impeach- ment simply increase the regular appropriation of the two years. In addi- tion, the House commenced investigation of the construction of the State capitol, where over $2,500,000 has already been expended, and at the time of adjournment discovered that the end was not reached and that further inves- tigation should be made; and the expense of such investigation can also be added to the list of regular appropriations. This report will be printed. The notorious Coffeyville explosion of two years ago came prominently be- fore this Legislature, and a legislative committee, composed jointly of Sena- tors and Representatives, was appointed to examine into the facts relating to such explosion; and that investigation is yet incomplete, but the expense can be added to the legitimate regular expense of the biennial period. The regular appropriations under Republican rule for the two years end- 22 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. ing June 30, 1891, were about $3,250,000; then add deficiencies, amounting to nearly $350,000, and their expense is $3,600,000. The appropriations made by the present Legislature, including the deficiencies made by the Legislature of 1889, amount to $2,600,000, a saving of a million dollars in current ex- penses. They also include the expenses of this Legislature, and carefully- estimated current expenses of the Legislature of 1893, and the payment of all bills to June 30, 1893. The Legislature of 1889 left as a debt against the State of Kansas the payment of salaries and expenses to every board connected with every State charitable, educational, and penal institution; it also failed to provide for the payment of sheriffs taking prisoners to the penitentiary; also the payment of sugar bounty provided for under the law passed by the Legislature of that year; also for the payment of expenses for providing for the destitute insane of the State; it also lacked nearly $80,000 of providing for the State Printer and for the State Fish Commissioner, and numerous other items, aggregating a grand sum total of about $350,000. All of these bills, so far as they have come to the attention of this Legislature, have been provided for and paid by the People’s Party in the House. The only serious difficulty which has been compromised by the House was one in which the Senate demanded that the House should make an appropriation to provide for the expenses of the Senate Revision Committee, provided for two years ago under Senate resolution. By consent of the House at that time, an ap- propriation of $1,500 was made to pay the expenses of the same. This House refused to pay the expenses of that committee exceeding the $1,500, unless itemized statements were filed with Auditor of State. After a struggle last- ing nearly a week, the House forced the revision committee to file their bill. That bill is herewith included, item by item. These items, it will be understood, were in case of a fixed appropriation, and made in violation of the law by Senators of the State of Kansas, which law provided for their imprisonment in the penitentiary in case they exceeded the appropriation. The House finally passed the bill which left these gentle- men free. The value of the work done by the Senate Revision Committee is submitted to the people of the State of Kansas, and in connection with the declaration of the most prominent attorneys in the city of Topeka, that their work could have been reasonably done at an expense of $500. F. P. Harkness 187 days’ service $561 00 34 days’ service 102 00 41 days’ service „ 123 00 4 days’ service 12 00 200 miles, at 15 cents 30 00 clerk hire for committee 1 , 150 00 clerk hire for committee 79 20 $2,057 20 PEOPLE'S MANIFESTO. 28 C. H. Kimball 187 days’ service ‘ ‘ 24 days’ service ‘ ‘ 17 days’ service ‘ ‘ 4 days’ service ‘ ‘ 34 days’ service 4 1 430 miles, at 15 cents. $561 00 72 00 51 00 12 00 102 00 64 00 $862 00 Joel Moody 187 days’ service 4 4 34 days’ service 1 ‘ 24 days’ service 4 4 17 days’ service........ 4 ‘ 4 days’ service 4 4 292 miles, at 15 cents. 561 00 102 00 72 00 51 00 12 00 43 00 M. C. Kelley 187 days’ service ‘ 1 17 days’ service 4 4 4 days’ service ‘ ‘ 34 days’ service 4 ‘ 24 days’ service 4 4 378 miles, at 15 cents. 561 00 51 00 12 (JO 102 00 72 00 56 70 841 00 854 70 T. B. Murdock 187 days’ service 561 00 “ 13 days’ service ; 39 00 “ 23 days’ service 69 00 “ 11 days’ service 33 00 “ 11 days’ service 33 00 17 days’ service 51 00 4 4 4 days’ service 12 00 1 1 272 miles, at 15 cents 40 80 838 80 Grand total 0 $5,453 70 There is no evidence to show that they employed any clerk other than one of their number, Senator F. P. Harkness. Not a single measure reported by this committee ever became a law, except one which was so badly mutilated that its authors could not recognize it. As a comparison of economy between the two houses, we submit the fact that the Senate, with 40 members, had 118 employes on its pay-roll, while the House, with a membership of 125, had only 82, making a difference of $129 per day in the cost of running the two houses. In closing, we can safely say, in refutation of the charges made by our po- litical enemies, and given such wide circulation, that we did not consider or pass a single bill that could in any way, directly or indirectly, disturb the re- lation of debtor and creditor, or jeopardize the collection of debts, or to re- pudiate any honest obligation; and with this brief and careful summary of only a few of the important measures considered and passed by the People’s House of Representatives during the thirtieth session of the Kansas Legisla- ture, with the action taken thereon by the Republican Senate, we know that we can safely say to every business interest in the State of Kansas, that we have tried to carefully guard and protect the same in the interests of the peo- ple of our State, and that they will not fail to see how unfortunate it was, and in future will be, to have a Republican Senate, whose only business object was to obstruct honest legislation in the interest of the people of this State, and to checkmate the action of the people’s chosen representatives, and we com- 24 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. mend this review to the honest consideration of onr people and a candid world. The above address is signed by — P. P. Eldeb, Speaker of the House . Wm. Rogebs, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. J. S. Doolittle, Chairman Committee on Judiciary. David Shull, Chairman Committee on Legislative Apportionment. Wm. M. Campbell, Chairman Committee on Railroads . A. A. Newman, Chairman Committee on Municipal Corporations. C. R. Cleveland, Chairman Committee on Engrossed Bills. M. W. Cobun, Chairman Committee on Federal Relations. W. Doty, Chairman Committee on Banks and Banking. Levi Dumbauld, Chairman Committee on Elections . A. H. Lupfeb, Chairman Committee on Education . John Bbyden, Chairman Committee on Live Stock. Concerning the work of the Senate Revision Committee, referred to above, Colonel S. N. Wood said, in “Wood’s Manifesto,” p. 9: “I have read the editorial in the El Dorado Republican as to the disposition of the bills reported by this ‘Revision Committee,’ and find that bill No. 1, An act in relation to State officers, etc., passed the Senate, was sent to the House, and March 6th the Senate recalled it, and, of course, strangled the little infant. “Bill No. 2 was an act to establish the salaries of the officers of both houses. “Bill No. 3, providing for a State Board of Public Works, passed both houses. “Bill No. 14, providing for a Fish Commissioner, passed the Senate. It was killed in the House, and this expense was saved to the State. “Bill No. 16, State Agent at Washington on a large salary, passed the Sen ate, was killed in the House, and this expense saved to the State. “Bill No. 20 was the county officers’ bill, already alluded to, and died in the Senate. [Died in hands of Conference Committee; Senate Jour. p. 726, and House Jour. p. 990.] “Bills Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 never reached the House, and died in the Senate in the arms of their godfather, the ‘Senate Revision Committee;’ and thus ended the Senate revision farce.” [If our space would permit, we would like to include all of “Wood’s Mani- festo,” and we now recommend everyone to get a copy as a companion to this volume.] ROGERS'S LETTER. 25 [Published in Leavenworth Times, April 12, 1891.] BUCHAN ANSWERED. The Wyandotte Manipulator shown up in Detail. — Mr. Rogers, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Issues a Strong Document.^Points of Vital Interest to the People of Kansas. — The Wily Senator’s Memory Seems to be Poor. — Notes. To Senator W, J. Buchan: My attention has been called to a four-colnmn statement published in the Topeka Capital of April 5th, signed by William J. Buchan, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, in which there are so many misstatements that I feel compelled to correct some of them. So far as the speech of Speaker Elder was concerned, I do not know as that gentleman needs any defense at my hands from the attacks of a man of the known standing of Senator Buchan, especially when that eminent Republican authority deliberately falsifies the records of both Senate and House regard- ing the appropriations of 1891; and, therefore, I shall pay no attention to that part of the Senator’s essay. As to the glory which can be won to either house over the introduction of bills, it is hard to see where it comes in, as a duplicate set was prepared by the State Board of Charities and the officers of the various institutions, and sub- mitted to members of both houses; and the long list of bills prepared by Sen- ator Buchan and his committee, and introduced with a flourish of trumpets on the eighteenth day of the session, were simply duplicates of a series of bills introduced by myself in the House on thatenth day of the session, and re- ferred the next day to the House CommitteeW Ways and Means. (See House Journal, January 28 and 24.) I certainly claimed no glory for having received these bills from the hands of the eminent army of appropriation-seekers, and introducing them, but if the House committee had reported those bills back exactly as prepared, except to reduce the salary of one official who had refused to pay a political assessment last fall, the people of Kansas would have been justified in denouncing that committee as being either incompetent or corrupt, especially if it had neglected to visit a single State institution, or inquire into its necessities. Yet this is precisely what Senator Buchan’s committee did, as I find by comparing the Senate committee record with a memorandum sub- mitted by the State Board of Charities at the beginning of the session. That there was a joint meeting of the two committees arranged for about the fifteenth day of the session, is true, and the failure of that meeting lies as much with Senators as Representatives. Later, the House committee asked for a joint investigation of the possibility of converting the Hutchinson Re- formatory into an insane asylum, but never even received the courtesy of an answer, in spite of the fact that the communication was delivered personally 26 POPULIST BAND-BOOK. to Senator Buchan, and the question was one deserving of the most careful consideration at the hands of every member of both committees. While the Senator is in error as to the number of House appropriation bills which passed, I have no desire to quarrel with him over the matter. The House committee took up Senate bills simply to save time, and in most cases used their own perfected bills as amendments, and from the amount of bad language used by the Senator about the matter, it is evident that he at least discovered that the beautifully type-written bills which had been prepared at various places in the State, while he and his colleagues were sweating blood over their perfection, had been through the hands of that “ ignorant ” lot of grangers at the other end of the capitol. The Senator is not wise in his refer- ence to the miscellaneous bill, and is unkind to his party friends. The terri- ble array of room rents, which he so bitterly complains of, was all arranged for by the Secretary of State, and his figures and vouchers were accepted by the House committee. It is my understanding now, that two of those rooms were occupied as sleeping apartments, one by an Alliance employe, and one by a Republican member ; but if I had known at the time that the Republican Secretary of State was certifying such bills, I should certainly have hunted up the Senator and assisted him all in my power in his efforts to prevent the un- fair expenditure of that $34.25. The Senator may recollect that several items were added to that bill which were not even suggested by the House. The little item of $10,000 to Cliff. Baker so as to round out his biennial appropria- tion to $220,490.36, an excess of over $67,000 of the amount allowed for State printing for the next two years, was put on by the Senate and forced through. Also, such little matters as paving bills in the home city of the Senator, and other items, which nearly doubled the amount of the, bill submitted by the House. The Senator is not so accurate in his figures, either r as would naturally be expected of the chairman of the committee which he tells us devoted so much time and attention to the financial affairs of Kansas. He prints a little table which he says shows the various amounts appropriated by the Senate. For the purpose of an easy comparison, I repeat it, as follows: For what purpose. 1892. 1893. State Horticultural Society §1,235 00 §1,235 00 State Agricultural College 17,350 00 9,300 00 Conveying prisoners to penitentiary 13,000 00 13,000 00 State Normal School 17,700 00 13,175 00 Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb 44,000 00 44,000 00 Institution for the Idiotic and Imbecile 19,570 00 19,570 00 State Reform School 38,500 00 38,500 00 Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home 20,000 00 20,000 00 Institution tor the Education of the Blind 19,200 00 19,200 00 Industrial School for Girls 17,500 00 17,500 00 Salary of State Board of Charities 6,500 00 6,500 00 State Insane Asylum, Topeka 120,000 00 120,000 00 ROGERS'S LETTER. 27 For what purpose. * 1892. 1893. State Insane Asylum, Osawatomie 87,850 00 87,850 00 State Penitentiary 163,878 78 138,425 00 Regents of Normal School, Agr. Col., and Penitentiary directors, 4,900 00 4,900 00 Destitute insane 30,000 00 30,000 00 Executive and judiciary 284,860 00 281,310 50 Total $911,043 78 $864,465 50 There Must Have Been a Mistake. — It is possible that, in the long, dark passage between the Senate and the House, Colonel Stacey, the eminent Re- publican Secretary of the Senate, may have changed some of the bills while he was carrying over his messages; but as I can see no good reason why he should do so, I am constrained to believe that the Senator has made a mistake some- what — a mistake almost as serious as he made in the national water-works bill, or the road-certificate refunding bill. When these bills reached the House, the following was the condition of them — I consolidate the two years for convenience: State Horticultural Society $2,670 00 State Agricultural College 36,677 64 Conveying prisoners 30,000 00 State Normal School .• 31,675 00 Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb 87,400 00 Idiotic and Imbecile Youths’ Asylum 41,140 00 State Reform School 77,000 00 Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home 40,400 00 Institution for the Education of the Blind 38,400 00 Industrial School for Girls 34,600 00 State Board of Charitable Institutions 13,000 00 Topeka Insane Asylum 239,200 00 Osawatomie Insane Asylum 174,900 00 State Penitentiary 378,463 78 Regents and Directors 20,673 42 Destitute insane.. .A 30,000 00 Executive and judicial 635,462 51 Total $1,911,662 35 How the Bills Grew. — The careful mathematician will notice that some- where between the eagle eye of Senator Buchan and the House Ways-and- Means-Committee room these bills had grown $136,153.07. The truly-good Colonel Stacey could not have stuffed all of the^ bills, and a look over the list shows that he got in his work on the Penitentiary bill, unless the Senator is mistaken, and it really leaves me in a quandary as to which is true — Senator Buchan mistaken or Colonel Stacey corrupt. The Senator says the Senate passed the bill at $302,303.78, and it arrived at the Houseswelled to $378,- 463.78. If Colonel Stacey was really trying to stuff thatbill, I cannot account for his leaving that 78 cents unchanged. As the bill passed at $329,580.78, it would look to an ordinary farmer as though there was an actual reduction of $48,883 for the next two years, instead of an increase of $20,000, as incident- ally stated by the Senator. If we add the earnings of the numerous convicts 28 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. now employed as waiters, cooks, etc., at State free hotel, the decrease of ex- pense is many hundreds of dollars more. The Senator is a trifle mistaken as to the Osawatomie Insane Asylum. The House attempted to even up salaries between the two asylums, and succeeded, in spite of the fact that it affected a few political farmers in Topeka. Then, as the Senate committee had declined to join us in an attempt to care for the large number of destitute insane, the House committee took Dr. Knapp into council, and proceeded to prepare a bill to erect a new building to provide for 300 more inmates. That appropriation was $60,000; in addition, we appropri- ated $53,000 to care for the insane received there after January 1, 1892. We believed this a humane and necessary appropriation, and we thank the Sena- tor for allowing it to pass without change. The most remarkable statement in the Senator’s essay is his table of defi- ciencies. To an ordinary man, who has not devoted his life to intricate calcu- lations, it would seem that when a law is passed to pay somebody, or something, a specified amount, and no appropriation was made to pay it, that when the appropriation was called for at a later date, that appropriation would be for a deficiency. Hence, to the ordinary man, who does not have enough ability to run the finances of Kansas, manage the great Republican party, and elect a Senator against the will of the people, all at once, it may seem plausible that the following amounts are really deficiencies: State Printer 180,000 00 Industrial School for Girls 10,000 00 Regents, Trustees, etc 25,930 00 Sheriffs (conveying prisoners) 24,000 00 Publishing joint resolutions , 19,255 00 Judges’ pay (1889).... 5,000 00 Soldiers’ Home 6,375 00 Care of destitute insane 75,000 00 State Agent 16,710 98 Sugar bounties 53,304 08 State Veterinarian 7 6,725 00 Old gas bills 1,242 00 Stationery for 1889 1,161 50 Secretary of Senate, 1889 471 00 Metropolitan police 20,000 00 State Library ... 4,000 00 Small items in executive bill 3,078 00 Total $352,352 56 It is very probable that the above list does not include all of the deficien- cies provided for, as they were scattered around among the famous collection of Senate bills which seem to have been so carefully prepared that even the noted chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee did not know what he was passing ; but as it only shows a trifling error of $181,836.57 on the part of Senator Buchan, we will let it pass. The Appropriation Bills. — The Senator is not to blame for the great ROGERS'S LETTER. 29 stress he puts upon these eighteen appropriation bills. He forgot to men- tion the fact that his committee passed another list of bills, and that they too passed the Senate and were taken by Colonel Stacey over to the House with a request that they be enacted into laws. Among these were bills to provide for buildings at Topeka, at Winfield, at Atchison, and at various other points, and after one of those cold, careful examinations of the needs of the State institutions for which the Senator’s wonderful committee has become so famous, the Republican end of the Legislature proceeded to ap- propriate something like $800,000 which the Senator seems to have forgot- ten about. Those bills camo over and fell among the hayseeds, and while no adequate provision was made for the insane, it was discovered that all the contractors were provided with fat jobs. Senator, I regret to say it, but at one time the House W T ays and Means Committee had thirty-nine of your bills in its possession which appropriated $2,704,016.24, and which did not cover the necessary appropriations by half a million dollars. While you were talking about the eighteen bills which the ignorant hayseeds bungled so terribly, why did you not review the other twenty-one? The House is willing to submit the wages paid in the Topeka Insane Asy- lum schedule, as given by the eminent Senator from Wyandotte, as being high enough, and really too high, when it is considered that necessary living expenses are furnished in addition to those salaries. The changes made by the House was an honest attempt to equalize salaries between the two asy- lums where the work was identically the same. The Senator ^plaintively refers to the number of small appropriations made by the Senate, aggregating $26,500, for necessary additions to buildings. Can it be that the wicked Colonel Stacey stuffed some more bills, or has the Senator lost the records of the hard-working body of which he is such a distinguished member? Here are a few of the ‘^trifling amounts” which arrived at the House: Industrial School for Girls State Reform School Idiotic and Imbecile Youths’ Asylum Osawatomie Insane Asylum Institution for the Education of the Blind Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home State Agricultural College Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb, State Normal School State House $6,400 00 28,617 00 18,794 00 24,175 00 3,680 00 54,350 00 24,010 98 9,500 00 31,675 00 278,000 00 Total $479,201 98 Some of these were allowed, and no institution was left to suffer. Even the State house got $60,000; enough to complete the dome, lay floors, build steps, and finish ten committee rooms, so that rents can be hereafter saved. 30 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . Enormous Misstatements. — If the Senator will look carefully at his state- ment that the $26,194 24 deficiency in the executive appropriation is for the pay of officers created two years ago, he may blush at the enormity of his misstatements. It is not true, as over $6,000 was for the State Veterinarian, $20,000 for the police commissioners, while the Fish Commissioner and the State Librarian both came in that bill. It would have been better to have attempted accuracy somewhere than to make continuous blunders, even if the Topeka Capital was ready with an indorsement of the manifesto before its delivery. The exceeding grace with which the Senator explains certain other financial matters is only exceeded by his statement of the annual tax levies since 1867, in which he shows his inability to comprehend what the actual levy has been in years gone by. See your tax receipts each year since 1867. He also insin- uates that the present assessment of the State is the highest in its history, when it is a known fact that our assessment is decreasing, and that the House consented to a levy of one-tenth of a mill higher than would be necessary if it was not very probable that the assessment of 1893 will be much less than the present one. All of the things which seem to have escaped the eagle eye of the Senator would fill a book, and I have not time to review them. When the People’s Party last fall charged extravagance and mismanage- ment upon the Republicans of Kansas, it made no charges which have not f'been proven. Taking the Senator’s own footings as true, and we have the legitimate expenses of the last biennial period swelled to the sum of $3,000,- 000, including the deficiencies, while the “extravagant” action of the present House has cut them down to a trifle over $2,000,000 after deducting the defi- ciencies. These are things so plain that he who runs may read and make no mistake. So far as the World’s Fair bill was concerned, the Senator knows that the body of which he is a member never passed one until so late in the session that not a quorum remained in the House. There was always connected with the Senate bill a rider which created a new State office, as well as a World’s Fair Commission. It was a bill in, which the amount to be appropriated was never questioned in either house, but in which Senate statesmen attempted to create a new permanent political office at the risk of a failure of the appro- priation. If anybody is responsible for the failure of that bill, it was not the House, because that body never attempted to make a political measure out of the bill until the issue had been forced by the Senate. In closing, I wish to ask the Senator what was done by the Senate to work reforms in this State? Your party promised railroad legislation. Did you make any effort to get any? If not, why not? Did you ever read the plat- form of your party of 1890? Why did you refuse to even consider any of THE RAILROAD BILL. 31 the promises therein made? Possibly you may imagine that the mere fact that the Senate backed its Ways and Means Committee in an attempt to meet every demand for an appropriation, is a sufficient record for such a party as you represent. If that is the case, I simply ask you to content your soul in patience and wait the verdict of the voters of Kansas in 1892. Wm. Rogebs, Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee. THE RAILROAD BILL. House bill No. 743 was the objective point of much discussion during the past winter, and will be an issue in the coming campaigns, and have great weight in determining the value of the services of the People’s Representa- tives; accordingly we here present the bill in full, together with comparative tables illustrative of the changes it would have produced if it had become a law: An Act to regulate and establish reasonable maximum charges for the transportation of freight on the different lines of railroad in the State of Kansas, and providing for a State Board of Railroad Commissioners, with general powers of superivsion over the transportation lines within the State, and giving to such commissioners full power and authority to control, fix and regulate the charges and rates to be collected by railroad and transportation lines for carrying freight over such roads and lines in Kansas, aijdsto prevent unjust and unreason- able discriminations in such charges, and providing for thA selection of such commission- ers, and the manner in which they shall be chosen, and prescribing their compensation and duties, and making appropriations to enforce this act. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: Section 1. That all railroad corporations or companies organized under the laws of Kansas, or doing business within the State, their trustees, receivers, lessees, or managing agents or officers, shall be limited in their maximum charges to the rates of transportation which are provided for in this act,~or fixed by the Board of Railroad Commissioners herein provided for. No rail- road or transportation company or corporation shall charge, accept, or re- ceive any greater rate for the transportation of freight from any point within this State to any point within this State than permitted or allowed under the provisions and authority of this act. All railroads in this State shall be classi- fied according to the respective annual earnings of the said several roads — according to the amount of their annual earnings within the State — for the preceding year, as follows: Class A shall include all railroads whose gross an- nual earnings shall be four thousand dollars or more per mile; class B shall include all railroads whose gross annual earnings shall be three thousand dol- lars per mile and less than four thousand dollars per mile; class C shall include 82 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. all railroads whose gross annual earnings shall be less than three thousand dollars per mile. Seo. 2. All railroads, corporations or companies shall be limited according to their classification to compensation to the amount fixed herein or estab- lished by the Board of Railroad Commissioners created by this act, and it shall be unlawful for any railroad corporation, company, association, individual or carrier engaged in the transportation of freight to charge, accept or receive a greater rate for the transportation of property than provided for in this act, or established and fixed by the said commissioners under the authority hereby conferred upon the said commission. Sec. 3. The office of each of the present commissioners of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of this State shall expire on the first day of April, 1891, and to fill the same the Executive Council shall, before the first day of April next, elect a competent person, who shall be a member of said board, and hold his office until the second Monday in January, 1892; the Senate of the State shall, before April 1, 1891, also elect a competent person, who shall be a member of said board, and hold his office until the second Monday in January, 1892; and the House of Representatives of the State shall, before April next, also elect a competent person, who shall be a member of said board, and shall hold his office until the second Monday of January, 1892. At the general election in November, 1891, there shall be elected three commis- sioners, who, after the second Monday in January, 1892, shall constitute the Board of Railroad Commissioners of this State and shall serve official terms as follows, to wit: One for three years, one for two years, and one for one year, respectively, from the second Monday in January, 1892, and that at the gen- eral election every year thereafter there shall be elected a commissioner, who shall be a member of said board, and shall serve for the term of three years from the second Monday in January next succeeding his election, and in case any vacancy occurs in said board at any time, not hereby provided for, the Governor shall appoint a competent person to serve until the next general election and qualification of his successor. The said Board of Commissioners shall have power to appoint a secretary, and remove him at pleasure. No person owning any bonds, stock or property in any railroad company, or who is in the employment, or who is in any way or manner pecuniarily interested in any railroad, shall be eligible to the office of railroad commissioner or sec- retary of said board. Said railroad commissioners and secretary shall be qualified electors of the State, and shall be sworn to the due and faithful per- formance of the duties of their respective offices before entering upon the dis- charge of the same. Each of said commissioners shall enter into bonds, with security to be approved by the Executive Council, in the sum of $10,000, con- ditioned for the faithful performance of his duties. THE RAILROAD BILL . 33 Seo. 4. Said commissioners shall keep their office in the State house, and they or either of them may act officially in any part of the State. They shall receive a salary of three thousand dollars per annum, and the secretary shall receive a salary of one thousand five hundred dollars per annum, to be paid as the salaries of other State officers are paid; and the said board shall be provided, at the expense of the State, with necessary office furniture and stationery. Seo. 5. For the purpose of this act the State of Kansas is divided into three districts. The first district shall consist of the counties of Nemaha, Jackson, Shawnee, Osage, Coffey, Woodson, Wilson, Montgomery, and the counties ly- ing east thereof. The second district shall consist of all counties west of said named counties to and including the counties of Smith, Osborne, Russell, Bar- ton, Stafford, Pratt, and Barber. The third district shall include and em- brace all counties west of said second district. One of said commissioners shall reside in each of the said districts, but shall be elected by the electors of the entire State. Seo. 6. The tariff of rates established in the schedules set forth in this act shall be considered the basis on which to compare the compensation for the transportation of merchandise, freight, goods or property over any line of road in this State, unless the same shall be found by said Board of Railroad Commissioners to be unreasonable or unjust, excessive or too low, and shall go into effect and be in force on the first day of July, A. D. 1891. Immediately after the appointment of said commissioners they shall cause to be served upon each company, corporation, transportation or railroad company or carrier en- gaged in business in the State of Kansas, a copy of the rates established by this act as a basis of maximum charges, and notify the said company in writing of the same by serving a copy thereof on its managing agent in this State, or other principal officer, and shall also notify said company that it will at a time and place to be fixed in said notice, prior to May, 1891, proceed to classify its said road, and will hear and determine any complaint, if any it make, against the enforcement of the rates provided for in the schedule of rates established as a basis of rates by this act, and requiring the said com- pany to appear before it and show cause, if any it may have, why the said prescribed rates of maximum charges should not be put in force as to its business. Seo. 7. Any railroad company, upon whom said notice provided for in sec- tion 6 hereof is served, may appear before said commission at the time and place fixed in said notice given by said commissioner, by its agent or attor- ney, and show cause, if any, why the said maximum charges for the transpor- tation of property herein provided for should not be enforced against its road, as likewise may any transportation company referred to in this act; 34 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. and it shall be the duty of the said commissioners to hear and determine all objections thereto, and if found by them to be unreasonable, unjust, too high or too low, the same shall be by them so adjusted and fixed as to be reason- able and just. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to also appear before said commission at the time of said hearing, of which time said com- mission shall give him notice, and resist any increase therein on behalf of the people of the State, and the said commission shall have full power and au- thority to compel the attendance of witnesses before it on behalf of either party and the production of papers and documents sufficient to enable it to determine the matter according to the right thereof ; and if any railroad com- pany, after being served with process of the said commission, shall fail to produce any paper, record, document or other instrument in writing required of it, or its officers or agents, shall fail to answer or report any matter re- quired by said commissioners to be disclosed to enable it to discharge its duty under the provisions of this act, the said company or association shall be deemed to be in contempt, and the said commission may punish the same by establishing a rate of transportation not more than ten per cent, lower than the rate provided for by the terms of this act, or as established by said com- mission. Sec. 8. The said commission shall be continuously in session at the capital of the State, or at such other place as it may, upon ten days’ published notice in some newspaper published at the point designated for meeting, and shall have full power, upon due notice to any company referred to in this act, and after a hearing, as provided for in this act, and after notice to the Attorney General, to change or alter any rate by either increasing or reducing the same so as to make the rate a just and reasonable rate for the transportation of any commodity or article; and when it shall have established the maximum rate of charges which any company, corporation or association referred to in this act shall charge for the transportations property or freight, it shall cause notice of the rate so established to be served on the company affected thereby, and the same shall be the maximum rate which the said company or associa- tion shall be permitted to charge for the transportation of freight or prop- erty over its line of road. Seo. 9. If any transportation company in the State of Kansas shall fail or refuse to observe the rate prescribed and fixed by the commission or the terms of this act, if unaltered by said commission, and refuse to put the same in force upon its line of road, or shall charge any greater or higher rate, the said company shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a fine of not less than five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dol- lars for each and every violation thereof, to be sued for and recovered in any district court in this State for the use of the school fund of the State; and THE RAILROAD BILL. 35 the said judgment, if unpaid for thirty days after the final rendition thereof, shall work a forfeiture of the charter of the said company and its right to do business in this State. Sec. 10. If any company or association referred to in this act shall fail to comply with the rates established as herein provided for, after being notified thereof, for a longer period than ten days, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the State to apply at once, upon being notified thereof by any per- son, to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of mandamus, in the name of the State of Kansas as plaintiff, to compel the said company to put in force the said rate so established; and if the said company shall fail or neg- lect to obey any peremptory writ of mandamus issued by said court on such proceedings, the company, or association, or person so offending, shall be punished as for contempt by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars per day for each and every day it persists in such refusal; and judgment shall be entered therefor upon proof of such contempt by said court, and the said fine, when collected, shall be paid into the school fund of the State, as other fines; and in addition thereto it shall be the duty of the said court to appoint a re- ceiver for the said road to take charge thereof, and operate the same in con- formity with the said maximum rate so established, until the company so offending shall enter into a good and sufficient bond, in such sum as the court may fix, to observe and comply with the requirements of this act, and the rate so established. In addition to the said judgments hereinbefore in this act provided for, the said courts shall enter against sahfccompanies or associ- ation referred to in this act, a judgment for all costs^ incurred, including an attorney’s fee of one hundred dollars per day to the Attorney General, or other assistant counsel by him employed, for each day engaged in the enforcement of this act against such defaulting company, which shall be taxed as part of the costs in the case, and shall be in lieu of all other compensation to such attorneys for^ enforcing this act, except as otherwise provided herein. Seo. 11. The said board of commissioners shall, on the first Tuesday in July in each year, classify the railroads and transportation companies coming un- der the provisions of this act, classing all lines of roads owned or operated by any one company according to the average earnings per mile owned or oper- ated by it within this State, for the purpose of fixing the rate to be charged under the provisions of this act; and at the said time any such company may appear before said commission and be heard on the question of the classifi- cation of such company, and the said commission shall have full power and authority to hear evidence on the said matter and compel the production of testimony or witnesses as it may deem necessary to fully determine the ques- tion of such classification according to the terms of this act; and upon said classification being made, the commission shall have the power to make and 86 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . establish such basis of rates for each company or transportation line accord- ing to its classification as it may deem just and reasonable: Provided , The basis of rates established for roads of any one class shalFapply to all other roads belonging to such class, and shall'be so established as to give to each road of such class an equal rating with the roads of such class upon its maxi- mum rate of charges. Such maximum rates established by the said commis- sion shall be so adjusted as to prevent^ and prohibit a greater charge being made for~a short haul than a long one;~and where any point to which freight shall be shipped is reached by two lines of road, one longer than the other, but both owned or operated by the same company, the rate charged for transpor- tation shall be computed as for the shorter distance, by which the freight might have been transported. Seo. 12. The said commissioners shall have power at any time, upon com- plaint made to them in writing by any person of the excessive rate by them established, or may without such complaint if they shall be satisfied that any rate by them established or in force under* the provisions of this act, or adopted by any company, is unjust, upon ten days’ notice in writing to the company whose rate is affected thereby, and after notice to the Attorney Gen- eral, proceed to investigate the reasonableness of the rate so complained of or believed to be unjust, and make such reduction therein, or increase, or other change therein as shall seem to them to be just and reasonable; and the order by them made shall go into effect at such time as they may fix, not later than ten days after the establishment thereof, and shall be the rate of maximum charges to be charged by said company under the provisions of this act, subject to all the penalties herein provided for; and its adoption may be compelled in the same manner as provided for the enforcement of other rates under this act. Seo. 13. It shall be the duty of the said commission to prepare such ques- tions and interrogatories as it may deem necessary to enable it to perform the duties prescribed in this act, and submit the same to the general manag- ing officer of every company doing business in this State, at such time as the said commission may deem proper; and every such company or its agent to whom such questions or interrogatories are propounded shall, under oath if required, within such time as the commission shall fix, being not less than ten days, answer fully and completely all such questions as may be propounded to it under the provisions of this act; and if any such company or its agents shall fail to answer fully any interrogatory to it or them propounded within the time fixed, the Attorney General shall apply, at the request of said com- mission, to the Supreme Court of the State or any judge thereof, for a writ of mandamus to compel such answer, and if any such company shall fail or neg- lect to obey any peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the said court under THE RAILROAD BILL. 37 the provisions of this section, the company shall be deemed in contempt, and may be punished as for contempt in the manner provided in section 10 hereof. Seo. 14. If any witness or other person served with any subpena or other process to appear before said commissioners, or to produce any paper or document or other record, shall fail to obey such process or order, he shall be deemed guilty of contempt, and may be punished as a witness in the district court for a like contempt by said commissioners, until a compliance with such order is made. Witnesses shall receive the sum of five cents per mile, to be paid by such person or party, or out of the appropriation herein provided for, as said commission shall order: Provided , No such fees shall be payable in advance, nor allowed unless the said commission shall so order. Sec. 15. The following schedule of rates and classification of freights shall be taken and held to be the classification and schedule of maximum charges of rates under the provisions of this act until the same shall be changed by said commission as provided for in this act: 2 38 POPULIST HAND-BOOK, KANSAS DISTANCE SCHEDULE OF BEASONABLE MAXIMUM Distance in miles. Merchandise , classes , in cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Car-loads, minimum tveight 20 , and fractional hundredths of a 1 Fifth class Class B Class C First class M » O 3 2 , » 33 /! Third class i ( i Fourth class t i j fo r s> > i 1 i l 5 and under 13 11 9 7 5 5 5 4.50 10 and over 5 14 12 10 8 6 6 5.50 4.75 15 and over 10 15 13 11 9 6.50 6.50 5.75 5 20 and over 15 16 13.50 11.50 9.50 7 7 6 5 .10 25 and over 20 17 14 12 10 7.50 7.25 6.25 5.25 30 and over 25 18 14.50 12.50 10.25 8 7.50 6.40 5.50 35 and over 30 19 15 13 10.50 8.50 7.75 6.50 5.75 40 and over 35 20 15.50 13.50 11 9 8 7 6 45 and over 40 21 16 14 11.50 9.50 8.50 7.25 6.25 50 and over 45 22 16.50 14.50 12 10 9 7.50 6.50 55 and over 50 23 17 15 12.50 10.50 9.50 7.75 6.75 60 and over 55 24 18 15.50 13 11 10 8 7 65 and over 60... 25 19 16 13.50 11.25 10.25 8.20 7.20 70 and over 65 26 20 16.50, 14 11.50 10.50 8.40 7 .40 75 and over 70 27 21 17 14.50 12 11 9 7.60 80 and over 75 28 22 17.50 15 12.25 11.25 9.25 7.80 85 and over 80 29 23 18 15.50 12.50 11.50 9.50 8 90 and over 85 30 24 19 16 13 12 9.75 8.20 95 and over 90 31 25 20 16.50 13.25 12.25 10 8.40 100 and over 95 32 26 21 17 13.50 12.50 10.25 8.60 105 and over 100 33 27 22 17.50 13.75 12.75 10.50 8.80 110 and over 105 34 28 22.50 18 14 13 10.75 9 115 and over 110 35 29 23 18.50 14.25 13.25 11 9.20 120 and over 115. 36 30 24 19 14.50 13.50 11.25 9.40 125 and over 120 37 31 25 19.50 14.75 13.75 11.50 9.60 130 and over 125 38 32 26 20 15 14 11.75 9.80 135 and over 130 39 33 27 20.50 15.50 14.25 12 10 140 and over 135 40 34 28 21 16 14.50 12.25 10.25 145 and over 140 41 35 29 21.50 16.50 15 12.50 10.50 150 and over 145 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12 .75 10.75 155 and over 150 43 37 30 22.50 17.25 15.75 13 n 160 and over 155 44 38 30.50 23 17.5!) 16 13.25 11.25 165 and over 160 4 15 39 31 23.50 17.75 16.25 13.50 11.50 170 and over 165 46 40 31.50 24 18 16.50 13.75 11.75 175 and over 170 47 41 32 24.50 18.25 16.75 14 12 180 and over 175 48 42 32.50 25 18.50 17 14.25 12.25 185 and over 180 49 43 33 25.50 18.75 17.25 14.50 12.50 190 and over 185 50 44 33.50 26 19 17.50 14.75 12.75 195 and over 190 51 45 34 26.50 19.25 17 .75 15 13 200 and over 195 52 46 34.50 27 19.50 18 15.25 13.25 4 4 4.25 4.50 4.75 5 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 6 6.20 6.40 6.50 6.60 6.80 7 7.10 7.20 7.80 7.40 7.50 7.60 7.70 7.80 8 8.25 8.40 8.60 8.80 9 9.20 9.40 9.60 9.80 10 10.20 10.40 10.60 10.80 8 3 3.25 3.50 3.75 4 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5 5.10 5.20 5.25 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 6 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.80 7 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 / THE RAILROAD BILL 39 FREIGHT RATES ON MERCHANDISE AND COMMODITIES. Commodities , car-loads , m cents and fractional hundredths Live stock , car-loads. of a cent per 100 lbs., minimum weight 2U,000 lbs. Car , inside measure , 31 //. In dollars and Distance in miles. W CO Cfi CO Cement, stucco, lime, plaster, and salt, in sacks, barrels, or bulk O co a> n 2 Soft coal, lump or nut Soft coal, slack or pea Wheat, flour, oat meal, flax seed, hemp seed, castor beans, and millet seed Corn, oats, rj*e, barley, sorghum seed, corn meal, bran, grain screenings, chop feed, mill feed and mill stuffs cents per car-load. rd and soft lumber, laths, hingles, sash, doors, blinds, ,nd moldings, and fence osts mmon brick, sand, gravel, ommon clay, building stone, tone flagging, or crushed tone Horses and mules Cattle and hogs Sheep — single-deck car 5 and under.... 3.50 3.25 2.50 2 1.60 4 3.50 10.00 8.00 7.00 10 and over 5 3.75 3.50 2.75 2.20 1.76 4.50 4 11.00 9.00 8.00 15 and over 10 4 3.75 3 2.40 1.92 5 4.25 12.00 10.00 8.50 20 and over 15 4.25 4 3.10 2.60 2.08 5.25 4.50 13.00 11.00 9.00 25 aud over 20 4.50 4.20 3.20 2.80 2.24 5.50 4.75 14.00 12.00 9.50 30 and over 25 4.75 4.40 3.30 3 2.40 5.75 5 15.00 13.00 10.00 35 and over 30 5 4.60 3.40 3.15 2.52 6 5.20 16.00 14.00 10.50 40 and over 35 5.20 4.80 3.50 3.30 2.64 6.25 5.40 17.00 14.75 11.00 45 and over 40 5.40 5 3.60 3.45 2.76 6.50 5.60 18.00 15.56^ ^11. 50 50 and over 45 5.60 5.20 3.70 3.60 2.88 6.75 5.80 19.00 16.25 12.00 55 and over 50 5.80 5.40 3.80 3.75 3 7 6 20.00 17 Mr 12.50 60 and over 55 6 5.60 3.90 3.90 3.12 7.20 6.15 21.00 17.75 13.00 65 and over 60 6.20 5.80 4 4.05 3.24 7.40 6.30 22.00 18.50 13.50 70 and over 65 6.40 6 4.10 4.20 3.36 7.60 6.40 22.75 19.25 14.00 75 and over 70 6.60 6.15 4.20 4.35 3.48 7.80 6.50 23.50 20.00 14.50 80 and over 75 6.80 6.30 4.30 4.50 3.60 8 6.70 24.25 20.50 15.00 85 and over 80 7 6.45 4.40 4.65 3.72 8.20 6.80 25.00 21.00 15.50 90 and over 85 7.15 6.60 4.50 4.80 3.84 8.40 6.90 25.75 21.50 16.00 95 and over 90 7.30 6.75 4.60 4.95 3.96 8.60 7 26.50 22.00 16.50 100 and over 95 7.45 6.90 4.70 5.10 4.08 8.80 7.10 27.25 22.50 17.00 105 and over 100 7.60 7 4.80 5.20 4.16 9 7.20 28.00 23.00 17.25 110 and over 105 7.75 7.15 4.90 5.30 4.24 9.20 7.30 28.50 23.50 17.50 115 and over 110 7.90 7.30 5 5.40 4.32 9.40 7.40 29.00 24.00 17.75 120 and over 115 8 7.45 5.10 5.50 4.40 9.60 7.50 29.50 24.50 18.00 125 and over 120 8.15 7.60 5.20 5.60 4.48 9.80 7.60 30.00 25.00 18.25 130 and over 125 8.30 7.75 5.30 5.70 4.56 10 7.70 30.50 25.50 18.50 135 and over 130 8.45 7.90 5.40 5.80 4.64 10.20 7.80 31.00 26.00 18.75 140 and over 135 8.60 8 5.50 5.90 4.72 10.40 7.90 31.50 26.50 19.00 145 and over 140 8.75 8.15 5.60 6 4.80 10.60 8 32.00 27.00 19.25 150 and over 145 8.90 8.30 5.70 6.10 4.88 10.80 8.10 32.50 27.50 19.50 155 and over 150 9 8.45 5.80 6.20 4.96 11 8.20 33.00 28.00 19.75 160 and over 155 9.15 8.60“ 5.90 6.30 5.04 11.10 8.30 33.50 28.50 20.00 165 and over 160 9.30 8.75 6 6.40 5.12 11.20 8.40 34.00 29.00 20.25 170 and over 165 9.45 8.90 6.10 6.50 5.20 11.30 8.50 34.50 29.50 20.50 175 and over 170 9.60 9 6.20 6.60 5.28 11.40 8.60 35.00 30.00 20.75 180 and over 175 9.75 9.10 6.30 6.70 5.36 11.50 8.70 35.50 30.25 21.00 185 and over 180 9.90 9.20 6.40 6.80 5.44 11.60 8.80 36.00 30.50 21.25 190 and over 185 10 9.30 6.50 6.90 5.52 11. 7G 8.90 36.50 31.00 21.50 195 and over 190 10.15 9.40 6.60 n 5.60 11.80 9 37.00 31.25 21.75 200 and over 195 10.30 9.50 6^70 7.10 5.68 11.90 9.10 37.50 31.50 22.00 40 ROPUL1ST HAND-BOOK, KANSAS DISTANCE SCHEDULE OF REASONABLE MAXIMUM Distance in miles. 210 and over 200. 220 and over 210. 230 and over 220. 240 and over 230. 250 and over 240. 260 and over 250. 270 and over 260. 280 and over 270. 290 and over 280. 300 and over 290. 310 and over 300. 320 and over 310. 330 and over 320. 340 and over 330. 350 and over 340. 360 and over 350. 370 and over 360, 380 and over 370. 390 and over 380. 400 and over 390. 410 and over 400. 420 and over 410. 430 and over 420. 440 and over 430, 450 and over 440. 460 and over 450, 470 and over 460 480 and over 470 490 and over 480 500 and over 490 Merchandise , classes , in cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 28 28.50 29 29.50 30 30.50 31 31.50 32 32.50 33 33.50 34 34.50 35 35.50 36 36.50 37 37.50 38 38.50 39 39.50 40 40.50 41 41.50 42 42.50 Car-loads, minimum weight 20,000 lbs. , in cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. x 20 20.50 21 21.50 22 22.50 23 23.50 24 24.50 25 25.50 26 26.50 27 27.50 28 28.50 29 29.50 30 30.50 31 31.50 32 32.50 33 33.50 34 34.50 18.50 19 19.50 20 20.50 21 21.50 22 22.50 23 23.50 24 24.50 25 25.50 26 26.50 27 27.50 28 28.50 29 29.50 30 30. JO 31 31.50 32 32.50 33 15; 75 16.25 16.75 17 17.50 18 18.50 19 19.50 20 20.50 21 21.50 22 22.50 23 23.50 24 24.50 25 25.50 26 26.50 27 27.50 28 28.50 29 29.50 30 13.75 14.20 14.60 15 15.40 15.80 16.20 16.60 17 17.40 17.80 18.20 18.60 19 19.40 19.80 20.20 20.60 21 21.40 21.80 22.20 22.60 23 23.40 23.80 24.20 24.60 25 25.40 11.20 11.60 12 12.40 12.80 13.20 13.60 14 14.40 14.80 15.20 15.60 16 16.40 16.80 17.20 17.60 18 18.40 18.80 19.20 19.60 20 20.40 20.80 21.20 21.60 22 22.40 22.80 M 9.20 9.60 10 10.40 10.80 11.20 11.60 12 12.40 12.80 13.20 13.60 14 14.40 14.80 15.20 15.60 16 16.40 16.80 17.20 17.60 18 18.40 18.80 19.20 19.60 20 20.50 21 THE RAILROAD BILL 41 FREIGHT RATES ON MERCHANDISE AND COMMODITIES — Concluded. Commodities , car-loads , in cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs., minimum weight % ,000 lbs . Live stock , car loads. Car, inside measure, SI feet. In dollars and Distance in miles. Hard and soft lumber, laths, shingles, sash, doors, blinds, and mouldings, and fence rtosts Cl M ® a Soft coal, lump or nut Soft coal, slack or pea 1 Wheat, flour, oat meal, flax seed, hemp seed, castor beans, and millet seed Corn ,oats, rye, barley, sorghu m seed, corn meal, bran, grain screenings, chop feed, mill - feed, and mill stuffs cents per car-load. ment, stucco, lime, plaster, rad salt, in sacks, barrels, hulk mmon brick, sand, gravel, sommon clay , building stone, itone flagging, or crushed it, on pi Horses and mules < i i i i 1 i 1 i a i n ss ■-*- •5" » d Oj 3 d O rQ X Sheep — single-deck car 210 and over 200 10.50 9.70 6.90 7.30 5.80 12.10 9.30 38.00 32.00 22.50 220 and over 210 10.70 9.90 7.10 7.50 6 12.30 9.50 38.50 32.50 23.00 230 and over 220 10.90 10 7.30 7.70 6.16 12.50 9.70 39.00 33.00 23.50 240 and over 230 11.10 10.20 7.50 7.90 6.32 12.70 9.90 39.50 33.50 24.00 250 and over 240 11.30 10.40 7.70 8.10 6.48 12.90 10.10 40.00 34.00 24.50 260 and over 250 11.50 10.60 7.90 8.30 6.64 13.10 10.30 40.50 34 .50 25.00 270 and over 260 11.70 10.80 8.10 8.50 6.80 13.30 10.50 41.00 35.00 25.50 280 and over 270 11.90 11 8.30 8.70 6.96 13.50 10.70 41.50 35.50^ 26.00 290 and over 280 12 11.20 8.50 8.90 7.12 13.70 10.90 42.00 36 i.00^ 726.50 300 and over 290 12.20 11.40 8.70 9.10 7.28 13.90 11.10 42.50 36.50 / 27.00 310 and over 300 12.40 11.60 8.90 9.30 7.44 14.10 11.30 43.00 37.00 27.25 320 and over 310 12.60 11.80 9.10 9.50 7.60 14.30 11.50 43.50 37.50 27.50 330 and over 320 12.80 12 9.30 9.70 7.76 14.50 11.70 44.00 38.00 27.75 340 and over 330 13 12.20 9.50 9.90 7.92 14.70 11.90 44.50 38.50 28.00 350 and over 340 13.20 12.40 9.70 10.10 8.08 14.90 12 45.00 39.00 28.25 360 and over 350 13.40 12.60 9.90 10.30 8.24 15.10 12.20 45.50 39.50 28.50 370 and over 360 13.60 12.80 10.10 10.50 8.40 15.30 12.40 46.00 40.00 28.75 380 and over 370 13.80 13 10.30 10.70 8.56 15.50 12.60 46.50 40.50 29.00 390 and over 380 14 13.20 10.50 10.90 8.72 15.70 12.80 47.00 41 .00 29.25 400 and over 390 14.20 13.40 10.70 11 8.80 15.90 13 47.50 41.50 29.50 410 and over 400 14.40 13.60 10.90 11.10 8.88 16.10 13.20 48.00 42.00 29.75 420 and over 410 14.60 13.80 11.10 11.20 8.96 16.30 13.40 48.50 42.50 30.00 430 and over 420 14.80 14 11.30 11.30 9.04 16.50 13.60 49.00 43.00 30.25 440 and over 430 15 14.20 11.50 11.40 9.12 16.70 13.80 49.50 43.50 30.50 450 and over 440 15.20 14.40 11.70 11.50 9.20 16.90 14 50.00 44.00 30.75 460 and over 450 15.40 14.60 11.90 11.60 9.28 17.10 14.20 50.50 44.50 31.00 470 and over 460 15.60 14.80 12.10 11.70 9.36 17.30 14.40 51.00 45.00 31.25 480 and over 470 15.80 15 12.30 11.80 9.44 17.50 14.60 51.50 45.50 31.50 490 and over 480 16 15.20 12.50 11.90 9.52 17.70 14.80 52.00 46.00 31.75 500 and over 490 16.20 15.40 12.70 12 9.60 17.90 15 52.50 46.50 32.00 42 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. [Western classification No. 10, in effect on all railroads operated in Kansas July 15th, 1890, followed the foregoing schedule and was adopted as amended by section 16 and made the legal classification of Kansas. Its publication here is omitted for want of space.] Seo. 16. In construing the foregoing schedule of maximum rates, when the rate for the exact distance is not shown therein, the rate to the nearest point or distance stated in the said schedule will prevail, and shall be held to apply. In the construction of the said classification of freights, the figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, given opposite each article, shall be construed to mean first, second, third, fourth and fifth class respectively; and 1 & \ for one and one-half first class, D 1 for double first class, 3 t for three times first class, 4 t 1 for four times first class, O. R. for owner’s risk, C. R. for carrier’s risk, S. U. for set up, K. D. for knocked down, C. L. for car-load, L. C. L. for less than car-load, A, B, 0, D and E as referring to the table of maximum rates and classes therein re- ferred to. Articles not enumerated shall be classed with analogous articles. Flour, corn meal, bran, and millstuffs, in sacks or barrels, shipped at own- er’s risk of wet or waste, in lots of ten thousand pounds but less than car- loads, shall be taken at one and one-fifth of the car-load rate provided for flour; in lots of two thousand pounds but less than ten thousand pounds, shall be taken at one and two-fifths of the car-load rate, f Cement, lime, stucco, plaster, and salt, in sacks or barrels, in lots of five thousand pounds or over but less than car-loads, shall be taken at one and two-fifths of the car- load rate on cement. Lumber rate covers straight or mixed car-loads of hard or soft lumber, laths, shingles, doors, sash (if glazed released), blinds, and mouldings. Hard coal or coke shall be taken in car-loads at a rate not ex- ceeding twenty per cent, higher than the rate provided for soft coal in car- loads. Hay, baled, in car-loads, minimum weight sixteen thousand pounds, shall be taken at class E rate. Green apples, car-loads, in barrels, sacks, or bulk, shall be taken at class B rate. Potatoes, car-loads, in barrels, sacks, or bulk, shall be taken at class D rate. Rock salt shall be taken in car-loads at the same rates provided for soft coal in car-loads. Seo. 17. No common carrier, railroad corporation or transportation com- pany, which shall belong to class B road, under the provisions of this act, and which shall be classified as belonging to class B of this act, shall be permitted or allowed to charge more than the rate set forth in the foregoing schedule of rates, nor adopt or use a different classification of freights than that adopted in the foregoing schedule of maximum rates and classifications, unless it shall be ascertained, upon the hearing provided for herein before the said Board of Commissioners, that the same is not a just and reasonable rate and classi- fication; but the said rate and classification, if after said hearing before said commissioners as provided for in this act be found just and reasonable and THE RAILROAD BILL. 43 shall not be changed by them, shall be the maximum rate of charges as pro- vided in this act for all roads classed as B, by said commissioners, on and after July 1st, 1891; and all such companies, corporations, carriers, or trans- portation lines are prohibited from charging any greater or higher rate than allowed by this act and designated in said schedules. All railway corpora- tions, common carriers, or transportation companies, referred to in this act and classified as belonging to class A by said commissioners, shall be allowed to charge ninety per cent, of the said rate so fixed and allowed to be charged by roads belonging to class B, unless otherwise determined by said commis- sioners as provided in reference to said companies or roads of class B; and all railway or transportation lines, corporations or companies, herein referred to and classed under the provisions of this act as class C roads, shall not charge or receive more than ten per cent, in addition to said schedule maxi- mum rates, unless otherwise determined by said commission as provided in reference to roads belonging to said class B. Seo. 18. If any company, corporation or association referred to in this act fail to observe or refuse to comply with any of the provisions hereof, or re- fuse to obey any order of the said railway commissioners, made under the authority of this act, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to institute, at the request of the said commissioners, or of the Governor of the State, an action in behalf of the State of Kansas and in its name, to compel obedience thereto and observance thereof, and no bond for cost or other bond shall be required of the State in any such proceedings. The said Attorney General may also employ, by and with the consent of the said commissioners, assistant attorneys, to carry on any action brought under this act, or to test the valid- ity thereof: Provided, The compensation to be paid therefor shall be first agreed upon, and there be sufficient funds appropriated under this act unexpended to pay for such services. Seo. 19. The said Board of Railroad Commissioners shall, on August first in each year, publish the reasonable maximum rates and classifications in force in this State under the provisions of this act as applied and in force in this State, showing the roads to which the same is applied and their classification, and shall furnish ten copies thereof certified to by the chairman of said com- mission under the seal thereof to the county clerk of each county in this State, two copies of which at least shall be preserved by said clerk in his office, open for public inspection during hfs office hours. The said certified copies shall be evidence in any court in this State upon the trial of any action, civil or criminal, of the truth of the matters therein stated and the rates and classifi- cations therein fixed. It shall also be the duty of each railroad or transporta- tion company coming under the provisions of this act to keep in each of its depots and freight offices a printed copy of its schedules of maximum rates 44 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. and classification of freights in use and enforced by it, which shall be open to public inspection; and it is further made the duty of the county attorney and sheriff in each county in this State through which any such railroad runs or is operated, to compare its published rates as posted under this act on the first Monday in September and March of each year, and to certify to said commis- sioners whether the same conform to the said rates furnished said county clerk, whether or not the rates provided for in this act are observed by said companies, and if not, in what respect the same is violated, and report the names and residences of all witnesses by whom such violation can be proven. Any sheriff or county attorney failing to make such examination and report shall be liable to be removed from office upon conviction thereof in any court of record, and it is hereby made the duty of the Attorney General to see that this section of this act is observed and enforced. Seo. 20. It shall be the duty of every railroad corporation or company in this State to furnish reasonable facilities for loading and unloading freight offered to it for transportation and reasonable storage therefor, and such companies shall, upon demand of any shipper, and within a reasonable time after being demanded, furnish cars sufficient to transport all freight offered for shipment. The said Board of Commissioners shall have full power, upon application made to them, to compel every such company to comply with the provisions of this section, and any company failing to obey any order made in reference thereto by said commissioners after notice and hearing thereof, shall be liable to any person injured thereby in double the damages by him sustained, and in any such action, the court shall tax as part of the cost a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the plaintiff, and the further sum of fifty dollars as exemplary damages, to be collected by execution as in other cases. Seo. 21. There is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the State treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of fifty thousand dollars or so much thereof as may be needed, to pay the salaries of the said commissioners and meet the requirements of this act, until the first day of June, 1893: Provided , That none of said moneys shall be drawn or paid except upon the vouchers of said commissioners, attested by the Governor, stating what the same is for; and the said commissioners shall keep an accurate and detailed account of all moneys drawn from such treasury, and for what expended, and showing the amount of appropriation on hand unexpended, and shall report the same to the Legislature of this State at its regular sessions every two years. Sec. 22. The said commissioners shall also report to the said Legislature, briefly, its action and any legislation it deems needed to secure reasonable and fair rates of transportation. The said report shall also show the number of miles of each line of road in the State, the total number of miles, the actual THE RAILROAD BILL. 45 cost of construction per mile of each line of road in this State, the amount of stock issued by each company, the average amount per mile in Kansas, or proportioned to the miles in this State; 'the items of equipment of such road and the cost and value thereof; the bonded indebtedness of each road, and its average per mile in Kansas; the amount of aid received by each company or road from the General Government and its value, and the amount realized therefrom, and the average of such aid per mile; the amount of local or mu- nicipal aid received by each road, and its average per mile; the officers and address of each; when each road was constructed, when begun, when com- pleted; the amount in pounds and tons of freight shipped or loaded at each station in Kansas annually for the two preceding years, and the freight charged for the shipment thereof; the number of cars of wheat, corn, cattle, hogs, oats, live stock, salt, coal, and the number of cars of freight, and tons or pounds thereof unloaded in this State at its stations during said time, and the amount collected therefor, without reference to whether said freight was shipped from points within this State to points without the State, or from points without to points within the State, or between points in the State, and showing the amount charged therefor on all such freight. Such report shall also show the number of persons employed by each company, and the grade of employ- ment, the amount paid for such employment, the amount paid for material in repairing its road and machinery, the actual cost of operating such road during the year, and the cost of transporting freight per ton per mile to such ^companies; the amount paid by each road in taxes, dividends, interest upon bonds, and operating expenses, and such other matters as it deems for the information of the Legislature in reference to such roads. It shall be the duty of each company, or its agents, officers or employes, coming under the provisions of this act, to answer, under oath if required, all such questions as may be propounded, to enable said commissioners to report the said matters herein required. And it shall be the duty of the president, auditor, general traffic manager, general freight agent, or assistants; general passenger agent, or assistant; the traveling freight or passenger agents, the commercial freight agents, the local freight or ticket agents; the master mechanic, or his assist- ant; the roadmaster, or his assistants; the chief surgeon, or his assistant; or the chief clerk, or any clerk of the president, or any of the several depart- ments above enumerated of any railroad company engaged in transporting freight or passengers to or from any station to any other station on its line of railroad in the State of Kansas, to furnish to the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Kansas, when requested in writing, any information relating to the cost of operating said railroad, or the -cost of operating any of the sev- eral departments, together with the tonnage of freight received at or forwarded from any or all stations on said line of railroad in the State of Kansas, with 46 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . earnings accruing from freight received, tickets sold or freight forwarded from said stations. Any persons failing to furnish such information when re- quired shall be subject to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five, or both, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 23. In any action brought under the provisions of this act, in any court within this State, or in any action brought to test the validity thereof, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to bring the matter to a speedy and early hearing, and the matter being deemed one of public importance, the court before whom such action is pending shall, upon its own motion or the motion of any party thereto, advance the said proceedings or action upon the docket of the said court, giving the same preference over all other actions in the order of hearing, except criminal causes; and it shall be the duty of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of this State, in any such proceedings pending in said court, to cause such advancement and hearing of said action to be had as to bring the same to a speedy hearing and judgment. Sec. 24. The said Board of Railroad Commissioners shall have full power and authority to prescribe and fix, after notice and hearing as provided for in this act, the compensation to be charged by any railroad company for switching any car or doing or performing any other act by it done in the transportation, shipment, loading, unloading or storage of freight, limiting such charges to a reasonable and proper charge therefor. Sec. 25. The said commissioners may also employ one clerk and one ste- nographer at a salary of not more than one thousand dollars per annum, to be paid out of the appropriation hereby made, and shall provide itself with a seal, on which shall be engraved the words: “ Seal of the State Board of Rail- road Commissioners of Kansas;” and all process or orders by it made shall be authenticated therewith. Sec. 26. This act, being deemed of immediate importance, shall go ^nto effect^n and after its publication in the TRANSPORTATION. The members of the Legislature elected by the People’s Party in Novem- ber, 1890, were pledged to enact only such laws as would afford equal and exact justice to all — special privileges to none. The People’s legislators rec- ognized the unprecedented changes that have occurred during the past thirty years. The invention and perfection of machinery which has displaced man- ual labor has been wonderful, and this has worked economic changes not dreamed of in the past. The ease and (when compared with the methods in TRANSPORTA TION. 47 use in Kansas thirty years ago) the (Cheapness of transportation are among the wonderful feats accomplished in the last quarter of a century. Looking back to the territorial days of Kansas, we find, in 1857-58, Messrs. Russell & Waddell transporting Government supplies in wagons drawn by oxen from Ft. Leavenworth to Salt Lake City. Two years later, the discovery of gold in Colorado induced large numbers to emigrate to the new gold fields. The nearest point at which supplies could be obtained was the Missouri River, and all merchandise required by the immigrant in Colorado had to be transported in wagons. To make the trip from the Missouri River to Colorado and re- turn with an ox team required one hundred days; with a mule team the round trip could be made in sixty days. This saving in time and labor caused freighters to substitute mules in place of oxen, although the cost of the latter was more than double the price of an ox team. Nevertheless the money saved in wages more than compensated for the additional investment in mules. Compabison. — We compare the cost of labor in freighting by wagon in 1860-66 with the cost of labor in transportation by railroad in 1890. To illus- trate: B, a freighter, contracts with C, a merchant, to transport during the year — say 1865 — 5,000,000 pounds of merchandise from the Missouri River to Denver, Colorado; B has 250 mule teams; he employs 250 teamsters, the wages of teamsters average $40 per month, or $480 per annum; B loads in each wagon 3,350 pounds of merchandise, or 837,500 pounds in 250 wagons; during the year he makes six trips to Denver with his mule train; he delivers the 5,000,000 pounds of merchandise agreeable to his contract; he pays for labor — Wages of 250 teamsters (1860-66) one year each, at $480 per annum * $120,000 The average number of loaded cars hauled by the Union Pacific Railroad ( Report of Kansas R. R. Com., 1890, p. 319) in each freight train is twenty; the average ton- nage in each loaded car is 21,000 pounds, or 420,000 in each freight train ; therefore, twelve trains would haul 5,040,000 pounds. To run twelve trains from Kansas City to Denver, distance 639 miles (twelve times 639 are 7,668 miles), the railroad company pays — Wages of locomotive engineer, miles run $268 Wages of locomotive fireman, miles run 1 153 Wages of conductor, miles run 191 Wages of two brakemen, miles run 230 842 Total amount saved in wages over the old method $119,158 Thus we find, where one dollar was paid to labor engaged in transportation in 1865, to-day labor only receives seven mills; but let us look at it by days’ work, viz.: 1865, paid 250 teamsters’ wages (one year), 365 days each 91,250 days. 1890, paid train crew of five men, wages 38 days each 190 days. Total number of days’ labor saved 90,060 In other words, where 480 days’ labor were required in 1865 to transport by the old method, a stated number of pounds, to-day (1890), by the aid of ma- 48 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . chinery, one man in one day will transport the same number of pounds. But the question considered by the People’s Party was — Reasonable Rates.— Are the rates charged the citizens of Kansas reason- able and just? Have railroad companies kept pace with the improvement of machinery? What are their profits, under the rates now charged? The fol- lowing tables have been prepared without bias, prejudice, fear, or favor; the object sought has been facts, to enable the People’s legislators to carry out in good faith the mission for which they were elected. The information set forth in tabulated form will, we trust, be beneficial to all concerned. We think it fully justifies the People’s legislators in their effort to reduce transporta- tion taxes imposed on the people of Kansas by a foreign syndicate of bond- holders, whose ideas of government are preeminently anarchical. They have representatives in Kansas who ignore the American theory of government entirely. These representatives of the foreign syndicate are organized. Their organization in Kansas is known as the Trans-Missouri Railway Association. There are, in the United States, sixty-eight similar associations. The princi- ple governing said associations is, possibly, best described as anarchical-com- munistic — the syndicate, the head of the association, being anarchical; * while the associations in their dealings with one another are communistic.*f In their dealings with the people, the latter have neither laws nor rights which these associations respect. But we submit the tables of comparison, etc.: ♦Without rule or government; anarchic despotism. — See Webster. f Webster says com- munism is “ the doctrine of a community of property, or the negation of individual rights in property.” TABLE I— ShowiDg the location, by States or Territories, and the total mileage owned or operated by the railroad companies name as given in the Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners ot Kansas for the year ending June 30, 1890. TRANSPORTA TION. 49 8 Si £ § e s ,q 3 h- >»d ea co "2 ^ & 2 5® id a O fl ° S ^ a H 2 © 03 B M *jt O o O — 1 w bX) 00 cS •rj cs « -Goo *- 1 © •- *2 P >P -P © ►*"< a> • o „ 2 1 bfi kHc © ©■£ 03 © ^ X M ^ ^ © ^ O g H ^ o 2 p * oQ +5 Zh 3 .3 °a o o p =««p«a S-gog „.P 35 OS | J p p O ®.- 2.2 3 jp a p Total mileage operated MiOOCOOOOMItJIOiNN OOCOOlOOGCl^l^l-'r-OOlO ICC) CD O CO CO i-M !> 1-M Tfl DU L , 330 57 125 225 5 , 148 § r— ' ©“ CM Illinois 294 203 © Tfl i H i Iowa O ; CO . 831 : : : : i> Colorado © t-m : (M t' (D ; tji co co : M is i 1 : 1 :S : : : : Ci. © io_ • • • • • • , • • • | | | jH cm" Montana LZl CM t-M Idaho : : : • • • • Oh Tfl © i : : : i> c— Oregon 525 Washington • ••••••«•• co • ••••••••• ^ 432 »•••••••••• • • •••••••••• • .•••.•••••a • • • «»•••»•* i • • H(NMT)iiOOI>COi 350 H(NCOTjUC • <«-p 5 ©•M'H • ^ P ^ 2 «8 w ‘S O £ O CO ft -J-J 'x potJ .2 F S-l (U ^ F ^ O S+j _ m x , 03 (M ^ <<-, 1 | 33 ° ft 33 , t» m 3 175 ©^ 03 P © P « 2 S a «_ “ S3 03 2 o9-“«.S w c 3 ?H rtj ^ S5.S.S.S © © © © a> 00 bO be bC ao 03 03 eS c3 © © © © © SSiiS © o3 © P >> o3 j* *P « PH* o Ph © TABLE I-A— Showing the location by States or Territories, and the total mileage owned or operated by the railroad companies named, as given in the Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of Iowa for the year ending June 30, 1889. 50 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Total mileage operated C©C00500Thl^-t0O 05 05l00000*0t'~*“° ® o ►»«« g . ®0D 3 g >1 — £ o n ^ P-i ^ « bC— OOOOOOCS p cS bobCbJObCbCbfibCcr'aS P .H^StSCCCStjSSlKMp^HS 73 £ -2 .2 .a .2.2.2 .2 -2 a o a g P'2 P OJP3P3P3P1P1P3P3 3 <5 ® £ 9.2^ woujuuuuuflMWSoco^ Mileage west of the west line of Kansas 725 Mileage in Kansas, Nebraska and Dakotas 6,138 Mileage in Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri west of Mississippi river 11,692 Mileage in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Indiana west of the Mississippi river 6,471 TRANSPORTA TION. 51 * Vi ~ o ^ f-i i c« 03 O v 03 > 0) ©pa xn h— ©*♦- pa ° so ^ g« Sg 2 a & a ►a *.,0 00 ®H 0 - - P ® pa .5 p cS T3 3 © ®Vh bo © ^ V. © bC 03 fl pa ft-9 "o’S 8" 3 so P r. SS$ » » ® Kfl G3rP OX) ,*j .2®^ ■*■> 3^® 03 cj ^ ^ to so © et3 a© m ©pa p t* ^ $ P bC^ c3 R^ t»® O 2*3 a’ga 3g.g 3 §2 ■»&* - so Vi „ © ©•-IQ a a I © rPT=! 3 • ^ SlH S 3 a a 03 s 2 O * a g o3 3 ^ aioog^p PQ^Q w Per centum. ©OMN©CON«MOt'PTH0iMTj< I0^^05(N«M©(N®NthO10I0© HtCHNIOHt'N^INOOlOOOM {o^io^'tC5tOHoanootDib05t^ •^CO©COOO©5 oS ^ P §= = §&!■§ *25 Commissioners , Re- port, page 220.2- ® © p2 H 9 !3^ '*-> p p © ” Commissioners’ Re- port, page soiM-fasi'-O'sttas'M'^ossoos— < o^h I- ^ © in - icoqogooojossoosqoooo lC©HOJ©«05'-t>CO®fflOOOJ> CHOOdNOOMHiHH-^fflOHM^ O^O'NtHfHHSO-trtUOOMiltOl-' l- -'^h CO t^t>-^lOt^O3lOTtllOa3SO© oi co in h ci ^ r— oo o co th h so wcoinh o eoeoH i© cn CO P-* O O t"— O O IO 03 C3 H GO r-H tH CO Tfl ^©CiOlOOf'O-HTfOKNtHlOWH «NHCONHrHd(N(N(NCOlMXMm rjHC C0©»tHT}U0H03(NOM«OM !>-Tj(C0C-©» GO i-H C— 04 CO Tf* 00 © OO i-H r-ISC00O3SO00O3C©SOCO©t'-©COdc» a . Eh*MPQ 3 ci ^ a w c -=^ , - 3 h 4 O © D-ipi ^OOO^'M M S S d OQ QQ OQ H P P !NCO'si> P ^ S'hO r a ftP 4 ^ © 2 S © J* •2 o *2 03 2 ^ pa ^ ©’be© ips 5a i* - S3 &$ © 00 ■rp 'd ► aH « «°.. o ^ T3 T3. 03 © © a © fe p Prb3 3-^ C3 © © g •*■* s o. 2©^ a NP«3 - . P w P p bO © 22-8 das g g3 © © Hp 5*2 5:0 2? 'd /TJ ^ £ © © so © © 2: © rP 03 be© a P r. V I © - © og P -|.g oS s 2 %'Z *3 ft §?=I2f •rH 03 <— I ^ -*- 3 nH 2 .. OS 3 03 ©^2 § W O-Q *3 CIS S 03 g>s |>©s s •gpgfc'ts bo" -1 © c3 ® ® g-2 3 © p^ o’S 83 '03 gcg ^ p*d® 3 „ © OQ -d rJi >» OS ftp 5ar|S« a © Hv . — g-° .og sp 03 P •-•■= P Vi O © rP P®D®hO - ^ 2-2 ®i« ^d ftdj T-I ® "2 -M Vi pa h © to ^ m TABLE II- A — Showing the freight earnings and operating expenses chargeable to freight traffic, with net balances, of the several rail- roads named, the mileage covered being the same as given in preceding Table I-A, as shown in the Annual Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of Iowa for the year ending June 30, 1889. 52 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. ~ • 1 J O n Cj go p ag - -P as — < o cs o o> a M-o a CC00rJHiN10t0O©l0NQ«MNTfif'(N iC(NO50H(01000MtHMC0-ih05O OCdeO-t^(MrtCO-COOJ«M TfrtHO! «OI>OON 1-t Per centum. SO g a> 2 so a SH a~ o ?! © O H o ft" 3 ax a o ©5 (NU!(OtOOlNOOClONOa)000(NCN SO'^l-'^COSOlO'-N'^OM’^COMOO t'tOMHO>iONMOMOOOmoOH® OX»-^H^«®®NCOOOOOOI>N CO(N®ON®N«OC>©0010(M!NiOtO «NCCKOlO(N»(£MNlO005OlNiO(MHffl O O O lO rH 1-1 (M 3j 0) *2 5 CO ,2 o a —i p 2.2 o C * a Q L-J A « a e o a o cs 'C £ d o o ^ 2 o 3 a.5 CO^'OOtOU5COOO®a5CON®NO -l0(NMOl0100i©0)1'®Q0®0>N OJldNOONCOOlOHN-HlOOlOOIN N®-HN05IOlO00HONC01O^mO tJHSTJ— i^tt(NM®NQ0O®5ir300h. (MSOlOitlN-iOsm^COMOOGS^H 00Xijr^-Q0Mi-it-WI>OC}^05J0 lO CO O O CO 05 05 CO N!OMCOOiCOOOO-i’# i^cccocciOTTOiHioiNrocoaoMMco HH00NI>O5CClH.*OH Ti< . SO GO • T5 0> fn a> o 2 o * -2^ 3 g £ = S p £ 5 a Commissioners’ Re- port, page $ 60.2 = H.S S' Commissioners’ Re- port, pige -HMNOlONHrllOlOIO^OOO-l COaOiOO)OOOHOinoOOO®Offi t-co-COCOOOtOOOCOTttC-t-OOTO©©t^05 -Hr^^©t-IM©Oi0l0'^-H!005MT)t OOOJOMMOO'tt>i-t^COMI>'ctt(NCO OOtOt^SSfMCOOCO — iHTtttO^ONH -^-< 5 O o o mS CJ ft*^ © ^ o CO a > "d ® <—1 00 ^ a» +2 OP - L. 3 ^ §i? S g os o p © 25 bfi o O o ft §D^ ft Q?P ° 03 BQ © « o w S scgf && &ssa ■8 8-g-g a) o QQ >■ ® +J o •S 5r, fcJO aRi-s§ BP © fti .2 0 *2 'H *1 Poo eS P «2 © .2 O ^ o ©O'© 5dt3 t»*S zi -— o — o o^ > ^p -p 0 p P.2 Qj W ^ A 03 Ofto TABLE III — Showing the mileage of the principal railroads in Kansas; the cost of carrying one ton of freight one mile; average- TRANSPORTA TION. 53 0 © * ® 3 bp - ® s S sg H <1? D & ^© 3o5 a t" iCco 3*1 -S Sg * § h &n . 3 j; ® © '3*3 a a a o © © j ^ fl © to o g © g 2 53 “ 50 - 1 TO

bX) 0) fl ^ 0*H TO a o -P-5 n ® p5 © a? P ■SU'g to O 38p, Freight earnings per train mile N MOQ0t0^HMO(0(N©00©O05^ 1 WIOf'0)l''OiHOHOMO»OOH(N ) oocoH^cot^^^ot-ooi>aoh'io 1 0.26 1.26 1 HCOO®NO)HOMDM»TfTfOOH 1 lOlOOlOOOIC!I>COtt^©N«»©N **0 WNrlH t 1 0«50?0 to rr fr H OJ CO h!NH -T ib A co i-T o 26,100 1,631 Commissioners’ Report, 1890 2 Page. cooomincopi(N©howhn®hoo Tfi OO 05 O lO CO O (N i© 05 CO UO CO »h : M(NHCO(NHHCq(NN(NCONW(NTO ; —3 >© 1 5* ® 03 a) h 2 ^ 2 §i£ °s g^M flfaSfa O 50 50 S 3 to to o p g g TO H 03 TO *H A © a r © j 2 O TO © .2 © a _ gflSlS-i dS 12pSl«i«j„ ® cj '■£ TO ®*§ §®^ o-doog^gg ’^OoQffiwHPP ® p i’E* ® TO §® a © o ^ -*-* « © o a ® ® so" S® •%© ?H © b * O © <2 *p © g -s 2 8 5 ©rC A © ^'u © TO - © o' ® 05 © co a ^ TO p TO p^ © © t> bO ’Sc S ^ S p b as 2 ^ too TO © 2 .a0O5©i— MMCOT*IO«5 TABLE III-A — Showing the mileage operated, the cost of running freight train one mile, and cost of carrying one ton of freight one mile, by the railroad companies named, as shown by “Statistics of Railways in the United States,” report of Henry C. Adams, statistician, to the Inter-State Commerce Commission, June 30, 1889; also, showing the average distance hauled each ton of freight, and average receipts for each ton of freight carried one mile, Report of the Railroad Commission of Iowa, June 30, 1889; also, showing the profits for carrying one ton of freight one mile. 54 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Profits percentage for carrying one ton one mile £ (N(N(NIOtfiOCOOOlOOilOOO(NOI> socoeocot^io^Mt^eocot-coTfHOfM 875 VJ CO'' M 1C i* © Average receipts per ton for each ton carried one mile..., N i toot^r'050(00«oOHO-C0»0 CCMCnI Wo Mt^M(NiOOMlOiO«OCON(M itMlCNlOlOMWOOOMTftO^OO OlOOOOCNOklOOOCOkOCOMCOMMO M M'lo'TjTco' M M to M CM to O lo 03 StafisHnal R.pnort 1889 -^lacococococouoiokOt-t-cococoM comooooosoommm(mcoo*o x — 7 — € u a> . P-M Pm ® ® u .o O ce -2 P '5 'p ^1 P £ o o -*J M tc, a ee • iH ?H 1h p QJ wo g e 8 .2 ft P • 5 j 5 M : : ci : :w : : I i io .w j3 j ^ w .2 W .2 r— 1 2°o l§& ‘3 p p o V°§fl ft p s p • -2 p . 'CO « S >8 03 m 8 S' * g « 3 * 0*0*0 o'© OO 3 bCbC&D&C&CtiCbccr'aS P ® 2 . . ” .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 ^ do a ^ p -p 22222 pp 3 ^ a- 2 1 . 2 > oooooooQMWSOc»£> 54 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . © of o' a gam ° © ... ®d'ss *n b o' 'a £ O P -*- © Dh © 2 M C<3 © ©% «*■* © °T3 - ©■£©"* IIP s_ „ © o u -- w ® (S f fl fl © © o3 © ©^£i OJ „ H 8^ §>a M.t2 g O p a ©O *P5-d © © 0 ) o w w -p s_l a ,.. a &c c3 §-.2« ° £> © a £25 gw ^lo 0 o3 05 O £ °® §< * SSrt b£-3 - .S .2 ©'•S ’2 *+3 CO . © ® 2 © p *= ^ P 8 O rl _i W lips SllSS s«a|« _T 32 O , % 13 O M'S ■1'gSSfl l a l^ 2 og|*§ © a 2 © bC co o © ™®o 5f iS*q ©,a.2 'J8 5? 8a^ 2 8 5 8SS2 bfi^d fl go 4 m £Wja ©?q 03 U 3 U A I © .. © © U P ^ < c3 g m t!^S£“ M ®-2 S 'S a=s*o ! r© aid w 3 -2 W d OT H Profits percentage for carrying one ton one mile Profit. N(N(NIO0OM®IOffllCOOlNOI> ©CO^XlNlO^VOMtOt^X'^qN 875 54% Average receipts per ton for each ton carried one mile N j ?OONNMO!0©«XH0^1C^O OI>05COHI>X>ONHMNOCCXOJ co© r.©©a)®©HM^©Mt^^x 4.21 0.88 hh : m m ; : : m ; 17 1 Average distance carried each ton j of freight Miles. iotocoao©Mio©iooo©M OTHI>0!COJ03HtD(NX(0050^l> MMMCl--0)«10tO^(0»tO"H l rHHWNlNHCOCOCOM'O^^ICKON ; Cost of carrying one ton of freight one mile N • 1 © 00 © 3.18 7.07 ^5 l~ i Cost of running freight train one j mile -gOOT^Cr5000 gaO©©lOOMCiCOI>I>COiO©'^CM fto ^h-HNU50H10iO©N©COM Length of line operated ©lO^MOifflH«XCOH-i©ffiON I 1C S-i 00 05 05 t"» CO t— I GO 05 C" lO t" t— < t>- CO © It" tH ; y—i t-H Statistical Report, 1889. COffOOiCOThlt^COOClOSlOOOOOlOt^CN TtlrHlOt>IOinHM»OJr-i^tOT)(00 01CX©(NbnOX«iOWHWHHO ^ : rH • © tJ4 CM © ©^ w A M CM Miococoeococo*oioiot^t-~cococoM » 3 2 * .2^ ©3 e6 2 o © 2 ±3 ® 2‘ab^ II s * §8-1* 03 2^5 3J © o a* © © -u a fs • r-H f-H W 2 © s a; WO gJilS'SsT’jSSgSa Illi^^Sl m S ^ M ISSj g « 3 ® ££ 000 0'0p0S a) ^c3 .G© bDbfibCbObCbObDa'Ss 3 © 2 . . « cSoSoSoicScScSqSjMqWHaS .© .2 . w .2 .2 .2 .2 -© © © a 04 © "° 2 2 3 2 2 w 2 © ^ $ w 3 .2 > OOOOOOOWWM^Occ£> © be 03 5h © > < «a © !h ft © be cs 2S a u © . ftt-H Pm ®iS u£2 © c3 ©«H 2 a ft ,rH ‘S *© © © S 3 n <3 Ctf > © 03 ^ © *S ft© a © o 53 i. ? -3! q 03 TABLE IV— Showing the tuituhef of employes io the various departments of the railroad companies 1 Name of railroad company in Kansas system. Atchison, Topeka & Santa F6 1 Chicago, Kansas A Western 2 •. Manhattan, Aluia & Burlingame 2 Wichita & Western 2 B. & Mo. R. Div. 3 — Atchison & Nebraska 4 Beaver Valley 4 Chicago, Neb. & Kas.*.. Hep. Val., Kas. & S. W. 4 Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska 4 Hutchinson & Southern Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Kansas City, Wyandotte* Northwestern... Missouri, Kansas* Texas 4 Missouri Pacific Central Branch Union Pacific St. Louis & San Francisco Uniou Pacific b Totals.. MAINTENANCE OF ' S’ siKcci ri;s. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT. CONDUCTING FiL . 1,720 3,161 1,780 5,273 Name of railroad company in Iowa system. TABLE IV- A. Central Iowa.. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Chicago A Northwestern Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Chicago, Santa F6 A California Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis * Omaha.. Dubuque & Sioux City.. Kansas City, St. Joe & C Keokuk * Western.. Minneapolis & St. Louis.. Omaha & St. Louis Sioux City * Pacific Wabash Western i Council Bluffs... 7,571 198 16,880 ,319 ].. ! S. e e note, page 335, Kansas Report for 1890, mileage operated entir^Hne^ ,r ° m the n “ mber of em P ,o y^ s reported on page l 3 Only men employed on line in Kansas reported. 6 Include ^237°^"°^ ^ ansas ** a ilroad Commissioners for the year ending Ju the latter embraces the } operated under trackage rights. (See page 321.) 0 Deducted from the number employed reported on page 221, as the latter embraces the entire Note.— The page refers to number of men employed, nnd the average daily wages; however, when the compiler knew the monthly wages, or the amount per mile paid traiu men, he cor- rected accordingly. In this connection, it is proper to remark, that tables relating to labor m Kansas reports are of little value. TABLE Y — Showing the gross earnings from operating the railroads named, for the year ending June 30, 1890, as given in the Annual Report of the^Railroad Commissioners of Kansas for the year ending as first above stated. TRANSPORTA TION. 55 «r — a c3 P a *42 H s'- §, «r WO.® I O U ~ ~ 2 .2 -a ® ^ 3 « h o - O ‘H « f-i hn 03 fe 73 03 « « ° « ■pHCO''3COCOCO © p P^J 5 go I a® o of © bfi - 03 «3 &C“ bD® ® ft ^ H © -5 bO ; 5 P !-(©■— laOt'-COt'-lOCit-iCOlOlOO'SOOlO OH^MM«0«Cr)i05CCfflOtOTtT of ^ttT cT rjT CO~ o'er co" of th OJ tOHH ©(NHCO CO Tfi O lO CO CO r-l Q0i-CO-H HlOCOOO'^INlOCOrHCOMO'tCO l^OdHt>C> d pO cpj vx> *** © • a* Sf Cij os 2 'O >> 9 2 ^.2 o 2w s 5§3iS a rg-§ os ^ 0 H ® «a 0 ) ®_J - o 1$ P C3 > *8 « ^ ^ o p s» oS 2 'g S s Oco 3 oS 1 ^ _l oa O M ^ 00 OB'- ^ •— i 3 o n 03 ^ !!sft^ 6 §9§,(Si !3as fl - -W a O 1 a..® a P* CU “ t *!l!i!ll|l3!!i§ M J jO 1 © £ o' d 03crtcd -U »r-i .rH •Hbo _J bo .. |ll! 1 § a jj-g* a g (NCOTMOCOt^OOaOiHlNPJ^IO® Jh o a © TABLE Y- A— Showing the gross earnings from operating the railroads named, for the year ending June 3^, 1889, as given in the Annual Report of the Railroad Commissioners of Iowa for the year ending as first above stated. 56 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . m bib bo a 3.S a o #^Ot>N5010l0ai0i ^ IQ © *3 4> .2 13b p 0*3 S hS ► 4-1 4) f-l © r- th r- 00 © © 00 lO OO CO TjH C— l>> (NJ © © f— © C0©r-.00©^C«* c3 o, IT i-i05iOr-ir-iNi-i'HOOco(Noo©©cc Ttl 00 © C- co © oc c- (NC000 lO tH L- © © t-I r-i r-l 00 © 00 (MT-i(N t-H © © CxT © 00 Co' J © t'-' 50* 00 CO t>- tH CO ©CO©t^lO(M' S' B Merchandise. Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. CD - r Jl First class.. Second class Third class 1 . Fourth class Fifth class Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E 1 Abilene 163 66 58 53 42 37 30 23 20 14 11 2 Alma 104 54 45 39 32 * 28 24 17 15 11 8 .3 Anthony 282 82 74 67 55 50 43 33.50 27 20 16 4 Arkalon 395 110 102 85 76 70 59 46 36 31 22 5 Ashland 394 110 102 85 76 70 59 46 36 31 22 13 Atwood 374 100 92 82 70 65 57 42 34 28 20 7 Beloit 184 70 62 56 45 40 • 32 25 21 15 11.50 8 Benton 209 74 66 59 47 42 35 27 23 17 12.50 9 Bird City 401 115 106 87 79 72 61 47 36.50 32 23 10 Blaine 96 52 44 38 31 27 24 16 14 10 7.50 11 Blue Mound 117 57 48 43 35 31 26 18 16 12 9 12 Blue Rapids 95 50 43 37 30 26 23 16 14 10 7.50 13 Buffalo 140 61 52 47 39 34 28 20 18 12 10 11 Burlington 104 54 45 39 32 28 24 17 15 11 8 15 Clay Center 147 63 55 49 40 35 29 21 19 13 10.50 16 Colby 390 105 97 83 73 68 58 44 35 29 21 17 Coldwater 368 96 88 79 67 62 55 40 33.50 26 20 18 Columbus 148 63 55 49 40 35 29 21 19 13 10.50 19 Concordia 155 64 56 50 41 36 29 22 20 13 10.50 20 Corning 55 34 30 27 22 16 16 12 10 8 6 21 Council Grove.... 152 64 56 50 41 36 29 22 20 13 10.50 22 Dighton 381 105 97 83 73 68 58 44 35 29 21 23 Dodge City 368 96 *88 79 67 62 55 40 33.50 26 20 24 Dresden 350 88 80 73 61 56 49 36.50 30 23 19 25 El Dorado 195 72 64 57 46 41 33 26 22 16 12 26 Ellsworth 223 76 68 61 49 44 37 29 24 17 12.50 27 Emporia 113 56 47 41 34 30 25 18 16 12 8.50 28 Erie 120 57 48 43 35 31 26 18 16 12 9 29 Eureka 155 64 56 50 41 36 29 22 20 13 10.50 30 Fort Scott 99 52 44 38 31 27 24 16 14 10 7.50 31 Fredonia 152 64 56 50 41 36 29 22 20 13 -10.50 32 Garden City 418 120 108 89 82 74 63 48 37 33 23.50 33 Garnett 83 46 41 35 28 23 22 15 13 9 7 34 Girard 125 58 49 44 36 32 26 19 17 12 9.50 35 Goodland 423 125 110 91 85 75 64 49 38 35 24 36 Grainfield 356 '92 84 76 64 59 52 38 32 25 20 37 Great Bend 286 82 74 67 55 50 43 33.50 27 20 16 38 Greensburg 306 84 76 69 57 52 45 34.50 28 22 17 39 Gridley 114 56 47 41 34 30 25 18 16 12 8.50 40 Hartland 447 134 114 95 88 77 66 51 40 37 25 41 Hays City 286 82 74 67 55 50 43 33.50 27 20 16 42 Hiawattfa 40 28 25 21 19 13' 13 10 8 6 5 43 Hill City 324 86 78 71 59 54 47 35.50 29 22 18 44 Holton 55 34 30 27 22 16 16 12 10 8 6 45 Howard 204 74 66 59 47 42 35 27 23 ! 17 12.50 i Transporta Tion. 63 REASONABLE tariff rates. named, with reasonable rates on merchandise and car-load freights, between the points named, missioners, September 1, 1890. (Report 1890, page 119.) Commodities, Oar-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Live Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 feet. In dollars and cents per car-load. GO p" et- © P P P — i a GO — Soft coal, lump or nut W O 8? Wheat, flour, corn meal, flax seed, castor beans, broom-corn seed, mil- let seed, sorghum seed.. Corn, oats, rye, barley, bran, or mill stuffs Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, bran, barley, etc 2 zr *D -i rt- t G < c c f 3 S' 1 g s O "'O a> B 19 1 0.86 17.75 15.75 9.00 60.50 48.50 34.00 24 19 23 12.25 1 2.56 14.25 13.25 1 3.59 46.50 40.50 29.50 25 20 24 13.25 1 1.88 15.75 13,75 1 2.33 48.50 42.50 30.50 26 14.50 17.33 8.50 1 5.04 11 9 1 5.93 37.00 30.00 21.50 27 15 18 9 1 5.00 11.50 9.50 1 5.83 38.00 31.00 22.00 28 16 20.66 10.75 1 3.87 14 12 1 5.48 41.00 36.50 25.50 29 13 15.33 7.50 1 5.15 10.50 8.50 1 7.17 33.00 27.00 20.00 30 16 20.66 10.75 1 4.14 14 12 1 5.79 41.00 36.50 25.50 31 34 39 21.50 1 0.29 19.50 17.50 8.37 69.00 52.00 38.50 32 12 14 7.25 1 7.47 9.50 8 1 9.28 30.00 25.00 19.00 33 15 18.66 9.75 1 5.60 11.50 9.50 1 5.20 39.50 32.00 22.50 34 34.50 40 22 1 0.40 19.75 . 17.75 8.39 71.00 53.00 39.00 35 24 33 19.50 1 0.95 18 16 8.99 62.00 49.00 35.00 36 21 26 15.75 1 1.01 16.25 14.25 9.96 51.00 45.50 31.50 37 22 28 16.50 1 0.78 16.50 14.50 9.48 53.00. 46.50 32.00 38 14.50 17.33 8.50 1 4.91 11 9 1 5.84 37.00 30.00 21.50 39 35.30 42 23 1 0.29 20 18 8.05 75.00 55.00 40.00 40 21 26 15. '5 1 1.01 16.25 14.25 9.96 51.00 45.50 31.50 41 7 9.66 5.25 2 6.25 7.50 6.50 3 2.50 20.00 16.00 13.50 42 23 3l) 18 1 1.11 17.25 15.25 9.41 57.00 47.50 32.50 43 9 . 11.33 6 2 1.82 8 7 2 5.45 23.00 19.00 16.00 44 20 23.33 12.50 1 2.25 15.50 13.50 1 3.23 47.50 41.50 30.00 45 64 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . TABLE VII.— RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS' Showing distances from Kansas City, Leavenworth, Atchison, or Elwood, Kansas, to points by authority of the Kansas Board of Railroad Com- Between Kansas City, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas., Atchison, Kas., or Elwood, Kas., And g on* fi First class Second class Third class Fourth class Fifth class Class A Class B ■ i Class C Class D Class E ■ 46 Hoxie 357 92 84 76 64 59 52 38 32 25 20 47 Hutchinson 234 77 69 62 50 45 38 30 24 18 13 48 Independence.... 166 67 59 54 42 37 31 23 20 14 11 49 Ingalls 393 110 102 85 76 70 59 46 36 31 22 50 Iola 110 55 46 40 33 29 25 17 15 11 8 51 Junction City 139 61 52 47 39 34 28 20 18 12 10 52 Jetmore 354 92 84 76 64 59 52 38 32 25 20 53 Kingman 273 81 73 66 54 49 42 .33 26 20 15 54 Kinsley 332 87 79 72 • 60 55 48 36 29 23 18.50 55 Lawrence 34 25 23 20 17 12 12 10 8 6 5 56 Larned 308 84 76 69 57 52 45 34.50 28 22 17 57 Leoti 430 125 110 91 85 75 64 49 38 35 24 58 Lincoln Center... 221 76 68 61 49 44 37 29 24 17 12.50 59 Lyndon • 83 46 41 35 28 23 22 15 13 9 7 60 Lindsborg 207 74 66 59 47 42 35 27 23 17 12.50 61 Lyons 251 79 71 64 52 47 40 32 25 19 14 62 McPherson 196 73 65 58 46 41 34 26 22 16 12 63 Manhattan 119 57 48 43 35 31 26 18 16 12 9 64 Mankato 191 72 64 57 46 41 33 26 22 16 12 65 Marion 172 68 60 55 43 38 31 24 21 15 11.50 66 Meade Center 369 96 88 79 67 62 55 40 33.50 26 20 67 Medicine Lodge.. 329 86 78 71 59 54 47 35.50 29 22 18 68 Minneapolis 195 72 64 57 46 41 33 26 22 16 12 69 Mound Valley.... 149 63 55 49 40 35 29 21 19 13 10.50 70 Neal 148 63 55 49 40 35 29 21 19 13 10.50 71 Neodesha 161 66 .58 53 42 37 30 23 20 14 11 72 Ness City 350 88 80 73 61 56 49 36.50 30 23 19 73 Newton 201 74 66 59 47 42 35 27 23 17 12.50 74 Norton 318 85 77 70 58 53 46 35 28 22 17 75 Oberlin 347 88 80 73 61 56 49 36.50 30 23 19 76 Olathe 21 22 19 17 14 10 10 9 7 6 4.50 77 Osborne 218 75 67 60 48 43 36 28 23 17 12.50 78 Ottawa 58 -36 32 28 23 17 17 12 10 8 6 79 Paola 43 30 27 23 20 14 14 11 9 7 5.50 80 Parsons 137 61 52 47 39 34 28 20 18 12 10 81 Peru 198 73 65 58 46 41 34 26 22 16 12 82 Phillipsburg 283 82 74 67 55 50 43 33.50 27 20 16 83 Pleasanton 74 42 38 33 26 20 20 14 12 8 7 84 Pratt 276 81 73 66 54 49 42 33 26 20 15 85 Reece 171 68 60 55 43 38 31 24 21 15 11.50 86 Rush Center 318 85 77 70 58 53 46 35 28 22 17 87 Russell 263 80 72 65 53 48 41 32.50 26 20 15 88 Salina 186 71 63 57 45 40 33 25 21 15 11.50 89 Scandia 170 67 59 54 42 37 31 23 20 14 11 90 1 Scott City 406 115 106 87 79 72 61 47 36.50 32 23 TBANSP OB TA TION. 65 REASONABLE TARIFF RATES — Continued. named, with reasonable rates on merchandise and car-load freights, between the points named, missioners, September 1 , 1880. ( Report 1890, page 119.) Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. GO P, Soft coal, lump or nut W O P Wheat, flour, corn meal, flax seed, castor beans, broom-corn seed, mil- let seed, sorghum seed.. Corn, oats, rye, barley, bran, or mill stuffs Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, bran, barley, etc cents per car-load. B C 3 zr V ~i rt- G C « C c 3 CD ^CD D © 0 o CD B ciT Horses and mules Cattle and hogs t I 1 Sheep, single-deck car I 1 \ 1 l 1 3 ”D -s Cts Mills Cts Mills 24 33 19.50 1 0.92 18 16 8.68 62.00 49.00 35.00 46 21 24.33 13.50 1 1.54 15.75 13.75 1 1.75 49.00 43.00 31.00 47 17 21.66 11.25 1 3.55 15 13 1 5.66 43.50 38.00 27.00 48 30 37 20.50 1 0.43 19 17 8.65 66.00 51.00 37.00 49 14 16.66 8 1 4.54 11 9 1 6.36 36.00 29.00 21.00 50 16 19.66 10.50 1 5.11 13.50 11.50 1 6.55 40.50 35.00 24.00 51 24 33 19.50 1 1.02 18 16 9.04 62.00 49.00 35.00 52 21 25.66 15.25 1 1.17 16 14 1 0.26 50.50 45.00 31.50 53 23 31 1^.50 1 1.14 17.50 15.50 9.34 59.00 48.00 33.00 54 7 f 9 5 2 9.41 7 6 3 5.29 19.00 15.00 12.50 55 22 28 16.50 1 0.71 16.50 14.50 9.41 53.00 46.50 32.00 56 34.50 40 22 1 0.23 19.75 17.75 8.26 71.00 53.00 39.00 57 20 24 13.25 1 1.99 15.75 13.75 1 2.44 48.50 42.50 30.50 58 12 14 7.25 1 7.47 9.50 8 1 9.28 30.00 25.00 19.00 59 20 23.33 12.50 1 2.08 15.50 13.50 1 3.04 47.50 41.50 30.00 60 21 25 " 14.50 1 1.55 16 14 1 1.15 50.00 44.00 31.00 61 19 23 12.25 1 2.50 15.25 13.25 1 3.55 47.00 41.00 30.00 62 15 18 9 1 5.12 11.50 9.50 1 5.96 38.00 31.00 22.00 63 19 23 12.25 1 2.82 15.25 13.25 1 3.87 46.50 40.50 29.50 64 18 22 11.50 1 3.37 15 13 1 5.11 44.00 38.50 27.50 65 25 34 19.75 1 0.70 18.25 16.25 8.81 63.00 49.50 35.50 66 23 30 18 1 0.94 17.25 15.25 9.27 57.00 47.50 32.50 67 19 23 12.25 1 2.56 15.25 13.25 1 3.59 46.50 40.50 29.50 68 16 20.50 10.75 1 4.43 14 12 1 6.11 41.00 36.00 25.00 69 16 20.50 10.75 1 4.53 14 12 1 6.21 41.00 36.00 25.00 70 17 21.33 11 1 3.41 14.50 12.50 1 5.24 43.00 37.50 26.50 71 23 32 19 1 0.86 17.75 15.75 9.00 60.50 48.50 34.00 72 20 23.33 12.50 1 2.43 15.50 13.50 1 3.43 47.50 41.50 30.00 73 22 29 17.25 1 0.85 17 15 9.43 55.00 47.00 32.00 74 23 32 19 1 0.85 17.75 15.75 9.08 60.50 48.50 34.00 75 6.50 7.66 4.50 4 2.85 6 5 4 7.62 17.00 13.00 11.00 76 20 23.66 13 1 1.92 15.50 13.50 1 2.38 48.00 42.00 30.50 77 10 12 6.25 2 1.55 8.25 7.25 2 5.00 24.00 20.00 16.00 78 8 10.33 5.50 2 5.58 8.50 6.50 3 0.23 21.00 17.00 14.00 79 16 19.66 10.50 1 5.33 13.50 11.50 1 6.79 40.50 35.00 24.00 80 19 23r 12.25 1 2.33 15.25 13.25 1 3.38 47.00 41.00 30.00 81 21 26 15.75 1 1.13 16.25 14.25 1 0.07 51.00 45.50 31.50 82 11 13 7 1 8.92 8.50 7.50 2 0.27 27.00 23.00 18.00 83 21 25.66 15.25 1 1.05 16 14 1 0.14 50.50 45.00 31.50 84 18 22 11.50 1 3.45 15 13 1 5.20 44.00 38.50 27.50 85 22 29 17.25 1 0.85 17 15 9.43 55.00 47.00 32.00 86 21 25.33 14.75 1 1.22 16 14 1 0.65 50.00 44.50 31.50 87 19 22.66 12 1 2.90 15.25 13.25 1 4.25 46.00 40.00 29.00 88 17 21.66 11.25 1 3.23 15 13 1 5.29 43.50 38.00 27.00 89 32 38 21 1 0.34 19.25 17.25 8.50 67.00 51.50 38.00 90 Live Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 In dollars and 66 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . TABLE VII.— RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS’ Showing distances from Kansas City, Leavenworth, Atchison, or Elwood, Kansas, to points by authority of the Kansas Board of Railroad Com- Between Kansas City, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas., Atchison, Kas., or Elwood, Kas., And g ( ! i i 1 2 a 30 30 30 < i i ( £ Z2 p < ! i 1 1 2 a* 30 a J ( ! 1 1 1 2 a a a s 1 Abilene 163 51 45.50 38 30 1 26 i 25 18 15.50 11 7.50 2 Alma 104 37 24 28 23 19 17 13 11 9 7 3 Anthony 282 76 65 57 49 42 38.50 25 21 20 . 14 4 Arkalon 395 92 81 73 64 57 49 35 28 26 18 5 Ashland 394 87 77 68 59 52 43 30 25 25 17 6 Atwood 374 81 74 68 57 51 i 42 34 27 20 16.50 7 Beloit 184 56 50 42.50 34 29 | 27 21 17 13 10 8 Benton 209 61 54 47 38 32.50 31 22 18 15 11 9 Bird City 401 89 80 72 60 54 47 39 30 23 19 10 •Blaine 96 37 34 31 25 20 18 14 12 11 7 11 Blue Mound 117 36 31 27 20 15 r F 13 8 7 5.25 12 Blue Rapids 95 40 35 28 23 19 17 13 11 9 1 13 Buffalo 140 52 43 40 29 24 25 19 12 12 9 14 Burlington 104 49 40 35 28 24 23 17 10 10 7.50 15 Clay Center 147 50 45.50 37 28 24 23 18 14 11 7.50 16 Colby 390 81 74 68 57 51 42 34 27 20 16.50 17 Cold water 368 86 76 68 58 52 43 29 25 22 17 18 Columbus 148 49 40 35 25 20 22.50 18 10 9 7.50 19 Concordia 155 51 45.50 38 30 26 25 18 15.50 11 7.50 20 Corning 55 30 25 22 20 15 15 11 j 5 8 6 21 Council Grove 152 49 40 35 28 24 23 18 13 11 7.50 22 Dighton 381 77 71 64 57 50 41 30 26 20 16 23 Dodge City 368 87 78 71 60 55 46 32 27 23 18 24 Dresden 350 79 71 65 55 49 40 29 25 20 15.50 25 El Dorado 195 58 52 45 36 31 30 22 18 14 10.50 26 Ellsworth 223 61 56 50 40 35 32 24 21 16 12 27 Emporia 113 49 40 35 28 24 23 18 13 11 7.50 28 Erie 120 49 40 35 25 20 | 22 17 10 9 7.50 29 Eureka 155 55 51 44 34 30 j 23 21 16 13 10 30 Falls City, Neb 101 25 20 17 15 12 11 9 7 7 i 5 31 Fort Scott 99 36 31 27 20 15 ! 17 13 8 7 5.25 32 Fredonia 152 52 47 42 31 26 26 21 13 13 9 33 Garden City 418 94 84 76 65 59 51 37 30 26 19 34 Garnett 83 40 34 29 24 17 17 14 10 8 7 35 Girard 125 49 40 35 25 20 ! 22 17 10 9 7.50 36 Goodland 423 89 80 72 60 54 | 47 39 30 23 19 37 Grainfield 356 80 72 66 57 51 j 41 30 26 20 16 38 Great Bend 286 66 58 50 41 36 32.50 24 21 16 12 39 Greensburg...^ 306 78 71 63 55 48 | 40 28 23 20 16 40 Gridley 114 52 44 38 29 26 , 24 18 12 11 8 41 Hartland 447 94 84 77 65 59 51 41 32 26 19 42 Hays City 286 64 58 53 48 42 I 34 26 22 16 13 43 Hiawatha 40 22 18 15 13 10 1 10 8 7 £ 6 5 TRANSPORTA TION. 69 RATES AND DISTANCES. sas,to points named; also rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said points via between the stations named. Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Lumber, lath, shingles, fence posts (cedar), sash, doors, blinds, moulding, bed slats, sawdust CO -rSL Soft coal, lump or nut W OB SO O G 0 M J Corn, oats, barley, rye, corn meal, bran, mill feed, mill stuffs, chop, sorghum seed, grain screenings, oat hulls.. cr Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, barley. cents per car-load. t in barrels, sacks, or mlk c H e c ? ST $ ® Li o P a> >s B CD O P leat, oat meal, flour, flax eed, hemp seed, millet ' eed, broom-corn seed, fltst.or hp.n.ns 1 1 J < l ( a b , •D r*- p Horses and mules Cattle and hogs Sheep, single-deck car Cts Mills Cts Mills 12 13 8.50 1 0.43 14 12 ij 4.72 35.00 30.00 18.00 9 10 7 1 3.46 10.50 8.50 1 6.34 28.00 23.00 18.00 21 24 10.50 7.44 16.25 14 9.93 41.50 36.50 31.50 25 30 16 8.10 19 17 8.60 45.00 40.00 35.00 24 26 16 8.12 18.25 16.25 8.25 45.00 40.00 35.00 20 29 12.50 6.68 18.75 16.75 8.95 55.00 45.00 27.00 13 15 10 1 0.87 15 13 1 4.13 40.00 30.00 18.00 15.50 13 8.50 8.13 15.25 13.25 1 2.68 40.00 33.00 25.00 22 30 13 6.48 19.75 17.75 8.85 55.00 45.00 27.00 10 10 8 "”i 6.66 11 9 1 8.75 28.00 23.00 18.00 8 7.66 5.75 9.83 9.50 8 1 3.67 27.00 23.00 17.00 9 10 6.50 i 3.68 10 8.25 1 7.37 32.00 25.00 18.00 11 13 7 i 0.00 11.50 9 1 2.85 31.00 27.00 20.00 12 13 7 i 3.46 10.50 8.50 1 6.34 30.00 25.00 18.00 12 15 9 l 2.24 12.50 10.50 1 4.28 36.00 30.00 18.00 20 29 12 6.15 18.75 16.75 8.59 55.00 45.00 27.00 23 25 16 8.69 17.75 15 8.15 45.00 40.00 34.00 10 10 7 9.46 10.50 8.50 1 1.48 30.00 26.00 17.00 12 15 9 i 1.61 14 12 1 5.48 40.00 30.00 18.00 7 8 5.50 2 0.00 8 7 2 5.45 23.00 19.00 15.00 12 13 7.50 9.87 12.50 10.50 1 3.81 30.00 25.00 18.00 20 25 12.50 6.56 18 16 8.39 47.00 41.00 27.00 23 29 16 8.69 17.50 15.50 8.42 45.00 40.00 33,00 18 25 12.50 7.14 18 16 9.14 47.00 38.00 22.80 15 13 8.50 8.72 15 13 1 3.33 38.00 33.00 25.00 17 17 10.50 9.42 15.50 13.50 1 2.10 40.00 35.00 25.00 . 12 13 7.50 1 3.27 11 9 1 5.73 30.00 25.00 18.00 10 10 7 1 1.66 10.50 8.50 1 4.00 30.00 25.00 17.00 15 13 8.50 1 0.97 14.50 12,50 1 6.13 35.00 29.00 25.00 7 9 5.50 1 0.89 10 8 1 5.84 22.00 20.00 12.00 8 7.66 5.75 1 1.61 10 8 1 6.16 29.00 22.00 17.00 11 13 8 1 0.52 12 10 1 3.16 32.00 27.00 20.00 24 32 18.50 8.85 18.75 16.75 8.01 50.00 45.00 35.00 9 10 6 1 4.45 9.50 8 1 9.27 25.00 22.00 13.00 10 10 6.50 1 0.40 10.50 8.50 1 3.60 30.00 25.00 17.00 22 30 13 6.14 19.75 17.75 8.39 55.00 45.00 27.00 19.50 25 11.50 6.46 18 16 8.98 49.00 41.00 27.00 17 20 12 8.39 16 14 9.79 40.00 35.00 27.00 22 24 14 9.15 16.50 ' 14.50 9.47 45.00 40.00 32.00 13 13 7 . 1 2.28 11 9 1 5.79 30.00 26.00 20.00 24 32 18.50 8.28 19.50 17.50 7.83 55.00 45.00 35.00 17.50 21 11 7.69 16 14 9.79 40.00 35.00 27.00 $ 6 4.50 2 2.50 7 6 3 0.09 16.50 15.00 9.00 Live-Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 4 1 l 2 4 3 — 4 70 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . TABLE VIII.— RAILROAD TARIFF Showing distances from Kansas City or St. Joseph, Missouri, Atchison or Leavenworth, Kan- any railroad line operated Between Kansas City, Mo., St. Joseph, Mo., Atchison, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas., And 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Hill City Holton Howard Hoxie Hutchinson Independence... Ingalls Iola Jetmore Julian, Neb Junction City.... Kingman Kinsley Lawrence Larned Leoti Lincoln Center.. Lincoln, Neb Lyndon Lyons McPherson Manhattan Maukato Manley, Neb Marion Meade Center.... Medicine Lodge. Minneapolis Mound Valley... Ness City Newton Norton Oberlin Olathe Omaha, Neb Osborne Ottawa Paola.. Paul, Neb Phillipsburg Pleasanton Pratt Rush Center.,,., In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. CD & B CO OQ Merchandise. Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. ' First class Second class Third class Fourth class Fifth class ( i \ i j 2 » a 32 > 1 J i i Class B ( i 1 ( 2 32 32 p ( I i 1 p 32 32 p ( 1 1 1 ! 2 32 32 S 324 72 64 59 52 44 37 24 22 18 13 55 29 24 19 15 12 12 10 8 8 e 204 64 56 50 39 35 32 23 18 15 li 357 79 71 65 55 49 40 29 25 20 15.50 234 66 58 50 41 36 32.50 24 20 16 12 166 52 47 42 31 26 26 21 13 13 10 393 93 82 74 65 58 50 35 29 26 18 110 49 40 35 23 20 22 17 10 ) 7.50 354 87 79 70 60 52 44 30 26 23 17 140 40 30 25 20 13 17 12.50 10 9 7 r 139 50 45.50 37 28 24 23 18 14 11 7.50 273 69 61 53 44 38 34.50 25 21 18 13 332 78 71 63 55 48 40 28 23 20 16 34 25 20 15 13 7 S 1 8 7 t 6 £ 308 72 64 55 47 40 36.50 26 23 20 14 430 90 81 73 60 54 46 38 29 23 18 221 58 52 46 35 31 28 21 18 13.50 10.50 206 40 35 25 22.50 16 17 13 11 9 7 83 35 31 25 21 17 16 12 10 c 1 7 251 61 56 50 40 35 32 24 20 16 12 196 61 56 50 40 35 32 24 20 16 12 119 40 35 28 23 19 17 13 11 9 7 191 53 47.50 40 32 27.50 26 19.50 16 12 S i - 181 40 30 25 20 13 17 12.50 10 9 1 7 172 52 47 40 32 27.50 26 19 16 12 8.50 369 90 80 70 61 54 46 32 27 26 18 329 80 67 59 51 44 41 27 23 22 16 195 56 50 42.50 34 29 27 21 17 13 10 149 50 45 40 30 25 25 20 10 10 8 350 74 66 61 54 46 39 26 24 18 13 201 58 52 45 36 31 30 22 18 14 10.50 318 72 64 59. 52 44 37 24 22 18 13 347 80 72 67 56 50 41 30 25 20 16 21 20 18 16 13 9 9 7 6 5 3.50 212 40 30 25 20 13 17 12.50 10 9 7 218 56 50 43 34 29 27 21.50 17 14 10 58 29 24 19 15 12 12 10 8 7 5.50 43 28 22 17 14 12 12 10 8 7 5 145 40 30 25 20 13 17 12.50 10 9 7 283 61 56 51 46 38 32 24 21 16 11.50 74 35 27 22 16 13 15 12 8 7 5.25 276 74 67 57 48 42 36 25 22 18 13.50 318 66 58 53 48 42 34 26 22 16 13 TRANSPORTA TION. 71 RATES AND DISTANCES — Continued. sas, to points named; also rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said points via between the stations named. Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. tr* «> crw £ GO Soft coal, lump or nut W 00 P 3 0 a t» J Corn, oats, barley, rye, corn meal, bran, mill feed, mill stuffs, chop, sorghum seed, grain screenings, oat hulls.. er 1 Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, barley, cents per car-load. 1 : 3 3 3* X> s ZJ mber, lath, shingles, fence >osts (cedar), sash, doors, dinds, moulding, bed slats, awdust t in barrels, sacks, or nilk te per ton per mile on a ft 1 ieat, oat meal, flour, flax eed, hemp seed, millet eed, broom-corn seed, astor beans j ( t ( -1 p 3 r-i- P Horses and mules Cattle and hogs Sheep, single-deck car ( ! i < 1 1 Cts Mills Cts Mills 16.50 23 11 6.79 16 14 '8.64 44.00 35.00 25.00 44 7 8 4 1 4.54 7 6 2 1.82 17.00 15.00 13.50 45 17 17 9 8.82 15.25 13.25 1 2.99 37.00 32.00 27.00 46 18.50 25 12 6.72 18 16 18.68 48.00 38.00 25.00 47 17 13 10 8.55 15.50 13.50 1 1.54 40.00 35.00 27.00 48 11 14 8 9.64 12 10 1 2.05 33.00 28.00 21.00 49 24 30 18.50 9'. 41 18.25 16.25 8.27 49.00 43.00 35.00 50 10 10 6.50 1 1.81 10.50 8.50 1 5.45 30.00 25.00 17.00 51 23 26 17 9.32 17.50 15.50 8.75 45.00 40.00 30.00 52 8.50 10 7.50 ...* 6.66 12 10 i 4.28 30.00 28.00 16.80 53 12 13 8.50 *”l 2.23 12.50 10.50 1 5.10 32.00 25.00 18.00 54 18 21 10 7.32 16 14 1 0.25 40.00 35.00 28.00 55 22 24 15 9.04 16.50 14.50 8.74 45.00 40.00 32.00 56 5 6.66 3 1 7.65 7 6 3 5.29 16.00 13.00 12.50 57 20 23 12 7.79 16.25 14.25 9.25 43.00 38.00 28.00 58 21 29 16.50 7.67 19.25 17.25 8.02 55.00 45.00 29.00 59 15 16 10.50 9.50 15.50 13.50 1 2.22 40.00 35.00 25.00 60 10.50 10 7.15 ...* 4.91 14 12 1 1.66 33.00 30.00 18.00 61 9 10 6 ”’l 4.47 9 8 1 9.27 22.00 18.00 16.00 62 17 17 10.50 8.37 15.50 13.50 1 0.75 40.00 35.00 25.00 63 15 13 9 9.18 15.25 13.25 1 3.52 40.00 35.00 25.00 64 9 10 6.50 1 0.92 11 9 1 5.13 30.00 25.00 18.00 65 12 15 9 9.42 14 12 1 2.56 40.00 30.00 18.00 66 8.50 10 7.50 V 5.63 13 11 1 2.15 33.00 30.00 18.00 67 13 13 8.50 9.88 14.50 12 1 3.95 35.00 30.00 22.00 68 24 28 15.50 8.40 18.25 16.25 8.81 45.00 40.00 35.00 69 22 25 11.75 7.14 16.50 14 8.51 42.50 37.50 32.00 70 13 15 9 9.23 15 13 1 3.33 40.00 30.00 18.00 71 10 13 7 9.39 12 10 1 7.45 32.00 27.00 20.00 72 18 23 12.50 7.14 16 14 8.00 45.00 38.00 27.00 73 15 13 8.50 8.45 15 13 1 2.93 40.00 35.00 25.00 74 15.50 23 12 7.55 16 14 8.80 44.00 34.00 20.40 75 18.50 26 12.50 7.20 18 16 9.22 48.00 38.00 23.00 76 5 3.66 3.25 "’3 0.95 6 5 4 7.62 14.00 10.00 8.00 77 8.50 10 7.50 ...* 5.08 14 12 1 1.32 33.00 30.00 18.00 78 13 16 10.50 9.63 15.50 13.50 1 2.38 40.00 31.00 19.00 79 7 8 3.75 1 2.93 n 6 2 0.69 17.00 16.00 13.50 80 6 5 "*3.75 1 7.44 7 6 2 7.91 17.00 15.00 12.00 81 8.50 10 7.50 ...* 6.52 12 10 1 3.79 33.00 30.00 18.00 82 13.50 20 30.25 7.24 16 14 9.89 40.00 30.00 18.00 83 7.75 7.33 4.50 1 2.16 8.50 7.50 2 0.27 23.00 20.00 16.00 84 20 22 11.25 8.15 16 14 1 0.14 40.00 35.00 30.00 85 18 22 12.50 7.86 16 14 .... . 8.81 40.00 35.00 27.00 86 Live-Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 feet. In dollars and 72 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . TABLE VIII.— RAILROAD TARIFF Showing distances from Kansas City or St. Joseph, Missouri, Atchison or Leavenworth, Kan- any railroad line operated Between Kansas City, Mo., St. Joseph, Mo., Atchison, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas. And 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Russell Salina Scandia Scott City Sedan Sharon Springs... Springfield, Neb. Smith Center Stafford Stella, Neb Stockton Strong City Syracuse Valley Falls Verdon, Neb Wakeeney ... Walton, Neb Wamego Washington Wellington Wesphalia.... Wichita Winfield Winona Yates Center Berlin, Neb Brock, Neb 263 186 170 406 204 429 193 254 273 117 250 148 470 36 111 321 197 104 120 261 101 222 247 398 124 160 169 la cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Merchandise. 64 56 51 81 62 89 40 56 69 33 61 51 94 24 30 74 40 37 45 73 43 66 73 87 52 40 40 58 50 45.50 74 57 80 30 50 61 25 56 43 84 20 23 66 35 34 39 63 38 58 63 79 43 30 30 50 42.50 38 68 50 72 25 43 53 22 51 36 77 15 20 61 25 28 35 55 34 50 55 71 38 25 25 40 34 30 57 37 60 20 36 44 18 46 28 65 13 17 54 22.50 23 25.50 47 25 41 47 59 28 20 20 Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. 35 29 26 51 33 54 13 31 38 13 39 24 59 10 13 46 16 19 21.50 40 18 36 40 53 23 13 13 32.50 27 25 42 31 47 .17 28 34.50 13 32 23 51 10 12 39 17 17 21 36.50 18 32.50 36.50 46 22 17 17 24 21 18 34 23 39 12.50 21 25 11 24 18 41 8 10 26 13 13 14.50 25 16 24 25 37 17 12.50 12.50 21 17 15.50 27 16 30 10 17 22 8 21 15 32 7 8 24 11 11 12.50 21 10 20 21 29 12 10 10 16 13 11 20 16 23 9 14 18 8 16 11 26 6 8 18 9 9 10 17 9 16 17 23 11 9 12 10 7.50 16.50 12 19 7 10 13 6 11.50 7.50 19 4.50 6 13 7 7 7.50 12.50 7.50 12 12.50 17 9 7 7 TRANSPORTATION 78 HATES AND DISTANCES— Concluded. sas, to points named; also rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said points via between the stations named. Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Lumber, lath, shingles, fence posts (cedar), sash, doors, blinds, moulding, bed slats, cc Soft coal, lump or nut /i SO ft CD t» J Corn, oats, barley, rye, corn meal, bran, mill feed, mill stuffs, chop, sorghum seed, grain screenings, oat hulls.. rr Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, barley, cents per car-load. J B B t in barrels, sacks, or >ulk te per ton per mile on oft, nnnl leat, oat meal, flour, flax eed, hemp seed, millet eed, broom-corn seed, astor beans p B p Horses and mules Cattle and hogs Sheep, single-deck car j 1 i 3 © -t 30 * Cts Mills Cts Mills 17 20 11 8.36 16 14 1 0.64 40.00 35.00 25.00 87 13 13 8.50 9.14 15 13 1 3.98 40.00 30.00 20.00 88 12 15 9 1 0.59 14 12 1 4.12 40.00 30.00 18.00 89 20 26 14.50 7.14 18.50 16.50 8.12 55.00 45.00 27.00 90 15 18.66 9 8.82 15.25 12 1 1.77 35.00 30.00 25.00 91 22 30 13 6.06 19.75 17.75 8.27 55.00 45 . 00 30.00 92 8.50 10 7.50 * 5.39 14 12 1 2.43 33.00 30.00 18.00 93 13.50 17 10 7.87 15.75 13.75 1 0.82 40.00 30.00 18.00 94 18 21 11.25 8.24 16 14 1 0.26 40.00 35.00 28.00 95 8.50 10 7 ...* 6.93 10 9 1 5.38 24.20 22.00 13.20 96 16.50 21 10.75 8.60 16 14 1 1.20 43.00 33.00 21.00 97 12 13 8 1 0.81 12.50 10.50 1 4.19 30.00 25.00 18.00 98 24 32 18.50 1 7.87 20 18 7.66 55.00 45.00 35.00 99 6 5 3.75 2 0.83 6.50 6 3 3.33 10.00 10.00 10.00 100 8.50 10 6.50 1 1.72 10 9 1 7.11 23.10 21.00 12. -60 101 17.50 23 11.25 7.01 16 14 8.72 45.00 38.00 27.00 102 10.50 10 7.15 ...* 5.07 14 11 1 1.17 33.00 30.00 18.00 103 9 10 6.50 1 2.50 10.50 8.50 1 6.35 28.00 23.00 18.00 104 9 12 8 1 3.33 11.50 9.50 l 5.83 35.00 30.00 18.00 105 18 21 9 6.89 15.75 13.75 1 0.53 40.00 35.00 30.00 106 9 10 7 1 3.86 10 8.50 1 6.83 28.00 24.00 18.00 107 17 13 8.50 7.65 15.50 13.50 1 2.16 40.00 35.00 27.00 108 18 21 9 7.28 15.75 13.75 1 1.13 40.00 35.00 28.00 109 21 29 12 6.03 19 17 8.54 55.00 45.00 27.00 110 11 13 7 ' 1 1.29 11.50 9 i 4.51 31.00 36.00 20.00 111 8.50 10 7.15 ...* 5.83 12 10 l 2.50 33.00 30.00 18.00 112 8.50 10 7.15 ...* 5.63 12 10 i 1.83 30.80 28.00 16.80 113 Live-Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 feet. In dollars and * From Rich Hill, Mo., add 85 miles to the distance given. AUTHORITIES FOR RATES QUOTED. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company: Tariffs No. 3-L, December 20, 1890, No. 6-G, December 1, 1890, and Coal Tariff No. 9-E. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company: Tariffs No. 1231, February 15, 1891, No. 1234, March 1, 1891, and Coal Tariff No. 427-B. Union Pacific Railroad Company : Tariffs Nos. M-775, and S-321. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company: Tariffs No. 295, April 30, 1890, No. 325, November 3, 1890, No. 297-A, September 1, 1890, No. 303, June 1, 1890, and No. 296, April 30, 1890. 74 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. TABLE IX.— REASONABLE MAXIMUM Showing distances from Kansas City, Leavenworth, Atchison, or Elwood, Kansas, to said points, authorized by House bill No. 743, passed the Kansas House of Rep- Between Kansas City, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas., Atchison, Kas., or Elwood, Kas., And g GO* ( i 1 1 ] p ST 33 ( i i ( p iT p ( j \ j ! p ( i i j 30 Ji H 1 Abilene 163 45 39 31 23.50 17.75 16.25 13.50 11.50 9.40 7.40 2 Alma 104 33 27 22 17.50 13.75 12.75 10.50 8.80 7.40 5.40 3 Anthony 282 68 54 42 31.50 23.50 22 19 16.60 14 12 4 Arkalon 395 80 66 54 37.50 29.50 28 25 21.40 18.80 16.80 5 i^shland 394 79 65 53 37 29 27.50 24.50 21 18.40 16.40 6 Atwood 374 77 63 51 36 28 26.50 23.50 20.20 17.60 15.60 7 Beloit 184 49 43 33 25.50 18.75 17.25 14.50 12.50 10.20 8.20 8 Benton 209 54 47 35 28 20 18.50 15.75 13.75 11.20 9.20 9 Bird City 401 80 66 54 37.50 "29.50 28 25 21.40 18.80 16.80 10 Blaine 96 31 25 20 16.50 13.25 12.25 10 8.40 7.20 5.25 11 Blue Mound 117 35 29 23 18.50 14.25 13.25 11 9.20 1.6 0 5.60 12 Blue Rapids 95 31 25 20 16.50 13.25 12.25 10 8.40 7.20 5.25 13 Buffalo...., 140 40 34 28 21 16 14.50 12.25 10.25 8.40 6.40 14 Burlington 104 33 27 22 17.50 13.75 12.75 10.50 8.80 7.40 5.40 15 Clay Center 147 41 35 29 21.50 16.50 15 12.50 10.50 8.60 6.60 16 Colby 390 79 65 53 37 29 27.50 24.50 21 18.40 16.40 17 Cold water 368 77 63 51 36 28 26.50 23.50 20.20 17.60 15.60 18 Columbus 148 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6.80 19 Concordia 155 43 37 30 22.50 17.25 15.75 13 11 < J 20 Corning 55 23 17 15 12.50 10.50 9.50 7.75 6.75 i 4.50 21 Council Grove 152 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6\80 22 Dighton 381 78 64 52 36.50 28.50 27 24 20.60 18 16 23 Dodge City 368 77 63 51 36 28 26.50 23.50 20.20 17.60 15.60 24 Dresden 350 75 61 49 35 27 25.50 22.50 19.40 16.80 14.80 25 El Dorado 195 51 45 34 26.50 19.25 17.75 15 13 10.60 8.60 26 Ellsworth 223 56 48 36 28.50 20.50 19 18.25 14.20 11.60 9.60 27 Emporia 113 35 29 23 18.50 14.25 13.25 11 9.20 7.60 5.60 28 Erie 120 36 30 24 19 14.50 13.50 11.25 9.40 7.70 5.70 29 Eureka 155 43 37 30 22.50 17.25 15.75 13 11 < 3 7 30 Fort Scott 99 32 26 21 17 13.50 12.50 10.25 8.60 7.30 5.30 31 Fredonia 152 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6.80 32 Garden City 418 82 68 56 38.50 30.50 29 26 22.20 19.60 17.60 33 Garnett 83 29 23 18 15.50 12.5D 11.50 9.50 8 7 5.10 34 Girard 125 37 31 25 19.50 14.75 13.75 11.50 9.60 7.80 5.80 35 Goodland 423 82 68 56 38.50 30.50 29 26 22.20 19.60 17.60 36 Grainfield 356 76 62 50 35.50 27.50 26 23 19.80 17.20 15.20 37 Great Bend 286 69 55 43 32 24 22.50 19.50 17 14.40 12.40 38 Greensburg 306 71 57 45 33 25 23.50 20.50 17.80 15.20 13.20 39 Gridley 114 35 29 23 18.50 14.25 13.25 11 9.20 7.60 5.60 40 Hartland 447 85 71 59 40 32 30.50 27.50 23.40 20.80 18.80 41 Hays City 286 69 55 43 32 24 22.50 19.50 17 14.40 12.40 42 Hiawatha 40 20 15.50 13.50 11 9 8 7 I 6 5.40 4.20 43 Hill City 324 72 58 46 33.50 25.50 24 21 18.20 15.60 13.60 TRANSPORTATION. n Freight routes, house bill no. 743. with reasonable maximum rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said stations, as resentatives February, 1891, but killed in the Republican Senate. w Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 24,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Hard and so: gles, laths, blinds, mo posts cc to ^ p i—> go o CO P te co J O 5'g-B | i-rVi — QjSO ~ *- d cr cents per car-load. CD CD © GO Pi _ i ^ P CD s* § 't coal, lump or nut (See Note 1.) e C 5 ST Lrt o p cc CD CD ieat, oat meal, flour, fls eed, castor beans, hem eed, millet seed ! j ( ( -t 33 P s> p ® CD P *P “ CD O >-s P e-t -"B M o 1-1 CO CD CO P O p CD P a cc P* CD CD y co. ' EL & ^ i £§p sM : cd 5 ^ : pJ*& O CD to b | = B : cc ct- : p ~ : o 2L : : J» a : erg : so w : *-s . i ►p CD I-S B © o D 2 O e*- CD ,03 1 i 1 j ! Class B ( i i ( p 23 in in p < 1 1 l Class I) < 1 1 1 t p p 30 X p 44 Holton 55 23 17 15 12.50 10.50 9.50 7.75 6.75 6 4.50 45 Howard 204 52 46 34.50 27 19.50 18 15.25 13.25 10.80 8.80 46 Hoxie 357 76 62 50 35.50 27.50 26 23 19.80 17.20 15.20 47 Hutchinson 234 58 49 37 29 21 19.50 16.75 14.60 12 10 48 Independence 166 45 39 31 23.50 17.75 16.25 13.50 11.50 9.40 7.40 49 Ingalls 393 79 65 53 37 *29 27.50 24.50 2} 18.40 16.40 50 Iola 110 34 28 22.50 18 14 13 10.75 i \ 7.50 5.50 51 Junction City 139 40 34 28 21 16 14.50 12.25 10.25 8.40 6.40 52 Jetmore 354 75 61 49 35 27 25.50 22.50 19.40 16.80 14.80 53 Kingman 273 66 53 41 31 23 21.50 18.50 16.20 13.60 11.60 54 Kinsley 332 73 59 47 34 26 24.50 21.50 18.60 16 14 55 Lawrence 34 19 15 13 10.50 8.50 7.75 6.50 5.75 5.20 4 L10 56 Larned 308 71 57 45 33 25 23.50 20.50 17 .80 15.20 13.20 57 Leoti 430 83 69 57 39 31 29.50 26.50 22.60 20 18 58 Lincoln Center 221 56 48 36 28.50 20.50 19 16.25 14.20 11.60 9.60 59 Lyndon 83 29 23 18 15.50 12.50 11.50 9.50 8 7 5.10 60 Lindsborg 207 54 47 35 28 20 18.50 15.75 13.75 11.20 9.20 61 Lyons...: 251 62 51 39 30 22 20.50 17.50 15.40 12.80 10.80 62 McPherson 196 51 45 34 26.50 19.25 17.75 15 13 10.60 8.60 63 Manhattan 119 36 30 24 19 14.50 13.50 11 .25 9.40 7.70 5.70 64 Mankato 191 50 44 33.50 26 19 17.50 14.75 12.75 10.40 8.40 65 Marion 172 46 40 31.50 24 18 16.50 13 :.75 11.75 9.60 7.60 66 Meade Center 369 78 63 51 36 28 26.50 23.50 20.20 17.60 15.60 67 Medicine Lodge 329 73 59 47 34 26 24^.50 21.50 18.60 16 14 68 Minneapolis 195 51 45 34 26 19.25 17.75 15 13 10 i.60 8.60 69 Mound Valley 149 42 36 29.50 22 17 15 .50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6.80 70 Neal.... 148 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6.80 71 Neodesha 164 45 39 31 23.50 17.75 16.25 13.50 11.50 9.40 7.40 72 Ness City 350 75 61 49 35 27 25.50 22.50 19.40 16.80 14.80 73 Newton 201 52 46 34.50 27 19.50 18 15.25 13.25 10 .80 8.80 74 Norton 318 72 58 46 33.50 25.50 24 21 18.20 15.60 13.60 75 Oberlin 347 75 61 49 35 27 25.50 22.50 19.40 16.80 14.80 76 Olathe 21 16 13.50 11.50 9.50 7 7 6 5 .10 4.50 3.50 77 Osborne 218 56 48 36 28.50 20.50 19 16.25 14.20 11 .60 9.60 78 Ottawa 58 24 18 15.50 13 11 10 8 7 6.20 4.60 79 Paola 43 21 16 14 11.50 9.50 8.50 7.25 6.25 5.60 4 .30 80 Parsons 137 39 33 27 20.50 15.50 14.25 12 10 8.25 6.20 81 Peru 198 52 46 34.50 27 19.50 18 15.25 13.25 10.80 8.80 82 Phillipsburg 283 68 54 42 31.50 23.50 22 19 16 .60 14 12 83 Pleasanton 74 27 21 17 14.50 12 11 9 7.60 6.60 4.90 84 Pratt 276 68 54 42 31.50 23.50 22 19 16.60 14 12 85 Reece 171 46 40 31.50 24 18 16.50 13.75 11.75 9.60 7 .60 86 Rush Center 318 72 58 46 33.50 25.50 24 21 18.20 15.60 13.60 Car-Loads. Mininhim weight, 20,000 lbs. TRANSPORTATION. 77 RATES, HOUSE BILL No. 743 — Continued. with reasonable maximum rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said stations, as resentatives February, 1891, but killed in the Republican Senate. Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 24,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Live-Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 feet. In dollars and cents per car-load. r <■ ; r < c c Hard and soft lumber, shin- | gles, laths, doors, sash, blinds, mouldings, fence Salt, lime, cement, stucco and plaster, in sacks, bar- rels, or bulk (See Note 2.) Soft coal, lump or nut (See Note 1.) W fi P3 Wheat, oat meal, flour, flax seed, castor beans, hemp seed, millet seed ( See Note 3.) ings, mill stuffs Corn, oats, barley, rye, corn meal, bran, sorghum seed, chop-feed, grain screen- bran, etc Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, barley, o CO CO te per ton per mile on nft nna! Horses and mules Cattle and hogs Sheep, single-deck car E < t 1 c Cts Mills Cts Mills 5.80 5.40 3.75 1 3.63 7 6 2 1.82 20.00 17.00 12.50 10.30 9.50 7.10 6.96 11.90 9.10 8.92 37.50 31.50 22.00 13.40 12.60 10.30 5.77 15.10 12.20 6.83 45.50 39.50 28.50 10.90 10 7.70 6.58 12.50 9.70 8.29 39.00 33.00 23.50 9.30 8.75 6.40 7.71 11.20 8.40 1 0.12 34.00 29.00 20.25 14 .13.20 10.90 5.55 15.70 12.80 6.51 47.00 41.00 29.25 7.75 7.15 5.30 9.63 9.20 7.30 "i 3.27 28.50 23.50 17.50 8.60 8 6.90 9.93 10.40 7.90 1 1.37 31.50 26.50 19.00 13.20 12.40 10.10 5.71 14.90 12 6.78 45.00 39.00 28.25 11.70 10.80 8.50 6.23 13.30 10.50 7.69 41.00 35.00 25.50 12.80 12 9.70 5.84 14.50 11.70 7.05 44.00 38.00 27.75 5 4.60 3.15 i 8.53 6 • 5.20 ”3 0.59 16.00 14.00 10.50 12.40 11.60 9.30 6.04 14.10 11.30 7.34 43.00 37.00 27.25 14.80 14 11.30 5.26 16.50 13.60 6.33 49.00 43.00 30.25 10.70 9.90 7.50 6.79 12.30 9.50 8.60 / 38.50 32.50 23.00 7 6.45 4.65 l 1.20 8.20 6.80 1 6.38 '25.00 21.00 15.50 10. £0 9.70 7.30 7.05 12.10 9.30 8.98 38.00 32.00 22.50 11.30 10.40 8.10 6.45 12.90 10.10 8.05 40.00 34.00 24.50 10.15 9.40 7 7.14 ! 11.80 9 9.18 37.00 31.25 21.75 8 7.45 5.50 9.24 ! 9.60 7.50 i 2.60 29.50 24.50 18.00 10 9.30 6.90 7.22 1 11.70 8.90 9.32 36.50 31.00 21.50 9.45 8.90 6.60 7.56 ! 11.30 8.50 9.88 34.50 29.50 20.50 13.60 12.80 10.50 5.69 15.30 12.40 6.72 46.00 40.00 28.75 12.80 12 9.70 5.89 14.50 11.70 7.11 44.00 38.00 27.75 10.15 9.40 7 7.18 11.80 9 9.23 37.00 31.50 21.75 8.90 8.30 6.10 8.19 10.80 8.10 1 0.80 32.50 27.50 19.50 8.90 8.30 6.10 8.24 10.80 8.10 1 0.94 32.50 27.50 19.50 9.30 ■ 8.75 6.40 7.80 11.20 8.40 l 0.24 34.00 29.00 20.25 13.20 12.40 10.10 5.77 14.90 12 * 6.85 45.00 39.00 28.25 10.30 9.50 7.10 7.06 11.90 9.10 9.05 37.50 31.50 22.00 12.60 11.80 9.50 5.97 14.30 11.50 7.23 43.50 37.50 27.50 13.20 12.40 10.10 5.82 14.90 12 6.92 45.00 39.00 28.25 4.25 4 2.60 2 4.76 5.25 4.50 4 2.85 13.00 11.00 9.00 10.70 9.90 7.50 6.88 12.30 9.50 8.72 38.50 32.50 23.00 6 5.60 3.90 1 3.45 7.20 6.15 ’"2 1.20 21.00 17.75 13.00 5.40 5 3.45 1 6.04 6.50 5.60 2 6.04 18.00 15.50 11.50 8.45 7.90 5.80 8.47 10.20 7.80 1 1.39 31.00 26.00 18.75 10.30 9.50 7.10 7.17 11.90 9.10 9.19 37.50 31.50 22.00 11.90 11 8.70 6.15 13.50 10.70 7.59 41.50 35.50 26.00 6.60 -£.15 4.35 1 1.76 7.80 6.50 1 7.57 23.50 20.00 14.50 11.90 11 8.70 6.30 13.50 10.70 7.75 41.50 35.50 26.00 9.45 8.90 6.50 7.60 11.30 8.50 9.93 34.50 29.50 20.50 12.60 11.80 9.50 5.97 14.30 11.50 7.23 43.50 1 • 37.50 27.50 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 78 Populist haUd-Pook. TABLE IX.— REASONABLE MAXIMUM FREIGHT Showing distances from Kansas City, Leavenworth, Atchison, or Elwood, Kas., to said points’ authorized by House bill No. 743, passed the Kansas House of Rep. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Between Kansas City, Kas., Leavenworth, Kas., Atchison, Kas., or Elwood, Kas., And a> S’ B Merchandise. » Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. ct> ob First class , Second class Third class Fourth class 1 1 Fifth class 1 ' i ( j i 1 j Q as 00 23 > < ! i I 2 ST X ■jx w < i ( ( 2 23 23 P ( I 1 1 1 2 io 1 23 2/ J i i ! p Sf 23 23 87 Russell — 263 64 52 40. 30.50 22.50 21 18 15.80 13.20 11.20 88 Salina 186 49 43 33 25.50 18.75 17.25 14.50 12.50 10.20 8.20 89 Scandia 170 46 40 31.50 24 18 16.50 13.75 11.75 9.60 7.60 90 Scott City 406 81 67 55 38 30 28.50 25.50 21.80 19.20 17.20 91 Sedan ; 203 52 46 34.50 27 19.50 18 15.25 13.25 10.80 8.80 92 Sharon Springs.... 429 83 69 57 39 31 29.50 26.50 22.60 20 18 93 Smith Center 254 62 51 39 30 22 20.50 17.50 15.40 12.80 10.80 94 Stafford 273 66 53 41 31 23 21.50 18.50 16.20 13.60 11.60 95 Stockton 250 62 51 39 30 22 20.50 17.50 15.40 12.80 10.80 96 Strong City......... 148 42 36 29.50 22 17 15.50 12.75 10.75 8.80 6.80 97 Syracuse.. 470 87 73 61 41 33 31.50 28.50 24.20 21.60 19.60 98 Tonovay 154 43 37 30 22.50 17.25 15.75 13 11 c ) 1 . 99 Topeka 50 22 16.50 14.50 12 10 9 7.50 6.50 5.80 4.40 100 Toronto 141 40 34 28 21 16 14.50 12.25 10.25 8.40 6.40 101 Tribune 471 87 73 61 41 33 31.50 28.50 24.20 21.60 19.60 102 Valley Falls 36 • 19 15 13 10.50 8.50 7.75 6.50 5.75 5.20 4 L 10 103 Wakeeney 321 72 58 46 33.50 25.50 24 21 18.20 15.60 13.60 104 Wamego 104 33 27 22 17.50 13.75 12.75 10.50 8.80 7.40 5.40 105 Washington 120 36 30 24 19 14.50 13.50 11.25 9.40 7.70 5.70 106 Wellington 261 64 52 40 30.50 22.50 21 18 15.80 13.20 11.20 107 Westphalia 101 32 26 21 17 13.50 12.50 10.25 8.60 7.30 5.30 108 Wichita 222 56 48 36 28.50 20.50 19 16.25 14.20 11.60 9.60 109 Winfield 247 62 51 39 30 22 20.50 17.50 15.40 12.80 10.80 110 Winona 398 80 66 54 37.50 29.50 28 25 21.40 18.80 16.80 111 Yates Center 124 37 31 25 19.50 14.75 13.75 11.50 9.60 7.80 5.80 TRANSPORTATION. ?9 HATES, HOUSE BILL Ho. 743 — Concluded. with reasonable maximum rates on merchandise and car-load freights between said stations, as resentatives February, 1891, but killed in the Republican Senate. Commodities, Car-Loads. Minimum weight, 24,000 lbs. In cents and fractional hundredths of a cent per 100 lbs. Live-Stock. Inside measure of car, 31 feet. In dollars and cents per car-load. GO P o’ P P P M w rrcrQ $a Salt, lime, cement, stucco and plaster, in sacks, bar- rels, or bulk (See Note 2.) Soft coal, lump or nut (See Note 1.) W CO P Wheat, oat meal, flour, flax seed, castor beans, hemp seed, millet, seed (See Note 3.) Corn, oats, barley, rye, corn meal, bran, sorghum seed, chop feed, grain screen- ings, mill stuffs cr Rate per ton per mile on corn, oats, rye, barley, rd and soft lumber, shin- lies, laths, doors, sash, >linds, mouldings, fence >osts e f j te per ton per mile on Aff Artol j < 1 -s p 3 ® p Horses and mules Cattle and # hogs Sheep, single-deck car 1 i < 1 1 3 5 3 Cts Mills Cts Mills 11.50 10.60 8.30 6.31 13.10 10.30 7.83 40.50 34.50 25.00 87 9.90 9.20 6.80 7.20 11.60 8.80 9.46 36.00 30.50 21.25 88 9.45 8.90 6.50 7.65 11.30 8.50 1 0.U0 34.50 29.50 20.50 89 14.40 13.60 11.10 5.47 16.10 13.20 6.50 48.00 42.00 29.75 90 10.30 9.50 7.10 7.00 11.90 9.10 8.96 37.50 31.50 22.00 91 14.80 14 11.30 5.27 16.50 13.60 6.34 49.00 43.00 30.25 92 11.30 10.40 8.10 6.38 12.90 10.10 7.95 40.00 34.00 24.50 93 11.70 10.80 8.50 6.23 13.30 10.50 7.69 41.00 35.00 25.50 94 11.30 10.40 8.10 6.48 12.90 10.10 8.08 40.00 34.00 24.50 95 8.90 8.30 6.10 8.24 10.80 8.10 1 0.95 32.50 27.50 19.50 96 15.60 14.80 11.70 5.00 17.30 14.40 6.13 51.00 45.00 31.25 97 9 8.45 6.20 8.05 11 8.20 1 0.65 33.00 28.00 19.75 98 5.60 5.20 3.60 1 4.40 6.75 5.80 2 3.20 19.00 16.25 12.00 99 8.60 8 6.90 9.79 10.40 7.90 1 1.20 31.50 26.50 19.00 100 15.60 14.80 11.70 4.97 17.30 14.40 6.11 51.00 45.00 31.25 101 5 4.60 3.15 1 7.50 6 5.20 2 8.89 16.00 14.00 10.50 102 12.60 11.80 9.50 5.92 14.30 11.50 7.16 43.50 37.50 27.50 103 7.60 7 5.20 ” i 0.00 9 7.20 1 3.84 28.00 23.00 17.25 104 8 7.45 5.50 9.16 9.60 7.50 1 2.50 29.50 24.50 18.00 105- 11.50 10.60 8.30 6.36 13.10 10.30 7.89 40.50 34.50 25.00 106 • 7.45 6.90 5.10 l 0.10 8.80 7.10 1 4.06 27.25 22.50 17.00 107 10.70 9.90, 7.50 6.76 12.30 9.50 8.56 38.50 -32.50 23.00 108 11.30 10.40 8.10 6.56 12.90 10.10 8.18 40.00 34.00 24.50 109 14.20 13.40 11 5.53 15.90 13 6.50 47.50 41.50 29.50 110 8.15 7.60 5.60 9.03 9.80 7.60 1 2.25 30.00 25.00 18.25 111 80 POPULIST BAND-BOOK, Authorities for Rates Quoted. Kansas Railroad Commissioners. Trans-Missouri Rly. Association. Per cent, over Railway Association. Trans-Missouri Rly. Association. Kansas House bill No. 743 Per cent, over House bill No. 743. o o B so <-i CD Su 111 113 113 111 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OU 24,835 24,927 24,927 24,835 Merchandise. In dollars and cents. 82.52 65.91 25* 65.91 59.82 q_ 2 _ •'lO 73.49 57.85 26* 57.85 49.63 H* 64.77 50.76 27* 50.76 39.57 22 54.24 41.88 29* 41.88 29.47 oqj> Car-Loads. In dollars and cents. 48.35 35.75 35.75 22.54 37 41.27 32.52 26* 32.52 21.03 35i n 31.20 24.31 28* 24.31 18.11 25* The Following Deductions are Represented Average rate of Railroad Commissioners.. 223 74.3 66.1 58.3 48.9 43.6 37.2 28.1 Rate per ton per mile 1 6.6.64 5.9.28 5.2.29 4.3.86 3.9.10 3.3.36 2.5.20 Average rate of Railway Association 221 58.3 51.2 44.9 37.1 31.6 28.8 21.5 Rate per ton per mile 1 5.2.76 4.6.33 4.0.14 3.3.57 2.8.60 2.6.06 1.9.46 Average rate of House bill No. 743 223 53.9 44.7 35.6 26.6 20.3 19 16.3 Rate per mile per ton 1 4.8.34 4.0.09 3.1.93 2.3.86 1.8.21 1.7.04 1.4.62 TRANSPORTA TION. 81 I TABLES VII, VIII, AND IX. Car-Loads. In dollars and cents. 25.84 19.51 32ft 19.51 15.55 20ft 19.91 16.18 23 16.18 13.21 18ft 15.03 12.20 23ft 12.20 11.05 Commodities in Car-Loads. In dollars and cents. ir 1 p B g- B £ O' J® Ch GO CD OB * P o _ g'SeJ** £p^£ i- 4- e p p £■ crq CO ° OQ tr JW O' Pj OB (t o' 21.73 16.22 , 34 16.22 11.53 28ft 26.94 18.97 42 18.97 10.76 43ft 14.87 10.82 37ft 10.82 8.34 n m m h 4 p CD CD £ I % g, I o' O'er P O D g B ® i a ffi Q CD P © CD *— 3 o-Ik B - pb co R 2 S|5 16.32 15.86 15.86 13.32 16 2 c © P £*• as p “ P ePr-O 5 §# i?- § r M*0B B — B © ®.CD o g'SfCJ sis.? s"l B | 14.21 13.69 13.69 10.56 22ft Live Stock in Car-Loads. Inside measure, 31 feet. In dollars and cents. 5,249.00 4,174.60 4,174.60 p p C3- © era CO 4.363.00 3.529.00 3,529.00 3,455.75 2ft go B' CD CD P C^ L CO o © 3,130.50 2,519.60 24ft 2,519.60 2,483.00 in Cents, Mills, and Hundredths of a Mill. 23.3 17.9 13.5 19.6 24.3 13.4 14.7 12.8 47.29 39.31 28.23* 2.0.90 1.6.05 1.2.15 1.7.58 2.1.80 1.2.02 1.3.18 1.1.48 2.1.20 1.7.63 2.5.31 17.3 14.3 10.8 14.4 16.8 9.6 14 12.1 36.94 31.23 22.29* 1.5.66 1.2.94 0.9.77 1.3.03 1.5.20 0.8.68 1.2.67 1.0.85 1.6.69 1.4.13 2.0.17 14 11.9 9.9 10.4 9.7 7.5 12 9.5 35.78 30.58 21.97* 1.2.56 1.0.67 0.8.88 0.9.33 0.8.25 0.6.72 1.0.76 0.8.52 1.6.04 1.3.68 1.9.80 * Car-load estimated at 10,000 lbs. Cattle, hogs, horses, and mr 1 es, estimated weight 20,000 lbs. / / 82 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . commissioners’ rates reviewed. The freight rates promulgated by the Kansas Board of Railroad Commis- sioners, effective September 1, 1890, authorized railroad companies doing business in Kansas, whenever said companies desired so to do, to advance freight rates twenty-five per cent.; that is to say, the rates authorized by said commissioners are twenty-five per cent, higher than rates charged by the rail- road companies from Kansas City, St. Joseph, or other Missouri river towns. The effect of issuing or authorizing a distance tariff, wherein the rates are higher than rates named in railroad terminal tariffs, is to discriminate against Kansas towns; while such discrimination works in favor of Kansas City, St. Joseph, or other Missouri River towns. To illustrate, we will take Junction City, Kas. The distance from Junction City to Council Grove is thirty-seven mile, while the distance from Kansas City, Mo., to Lawrence, Kas., is forty- one miles. McCord, Nave & Co., of Kansas City, sell to a merchant in Law- rence a bill of groceries (groceries take fourth-class rate); the freight rate, fourth class, from Kansas City to Lawrence, is thirteen cents per 100 pounds (Santa Fe Tariff No. 3-L). B. Rockwell & Co., of Junction City, sell a bill of groceries to a merchant of Council Grove; distance, via the M. K. & T. Rail- road, thirty-seven miles; the freight rate under the commissioners’ tariff (and it is the only tariff used between local points in Kansas, except where the inter-State law compels them [the railroads] not to charge a greater rate to intermediate points) is nineteen cents per 100 pounds; in other words, the Junction City merchant finds, when he undertakes to compete with Kansas City in selling goods to merchants in adjoining counties, that he has a dis- criminating freight rate of forty-six per cent, to overcome; this he cannot do; therefore he retires from the jobbing trade. Thus the earnings of Kansas farmers and laborers go to swoil the bank account of the Kansas City or St. Joseph merchant. It is this kind of discrimination against Kansas towns that has built up Missouri towns at the expense of Kansas. I am fully aware of the fact that the railroads have made a special tariff for Topeka, Wichita, Fort Scott, Hutchinson, Arkansas City, Winfield, Newton, Salina, and a few other Kansas towns, but this special rate only applies to merchandise — the first, second, third and fourth classes. On car-load freights, the discrimination has not been modified or removed. But time forbids further comparison. HOUSE BILL NO. 743 BATES. The desired object which we sought to accomplish by House bill No. 743 was to equalize freight rates in Kansas, giving to each county or municipality equal opportunities to build up and develop a local trade; to put the central and eastern towns in position to compete with Kansas City or St. Joseph in TRANSPORTA TION. 83 furnishing Colorado with the products of our farms, gardens, orchards, dairies, and henneries. The average reductions of freight rates proposed by said bill (merchandise and car-load freights) was twenty-two per cent., while the actual reductions, on tonnage basis, would not exceed ten per cent. Its adoption would have prevented, in a great measure, the present discrimination against Kansas by the railroad companies. However, we have, in preceding tables, shown by the figures of the Kansas Board of Railroad Commissioners, the cost of carrying a ton of freight one mile, and the average receipts for each ton of freight hauled one mile, etc. Now, as we are pushed for time, we sub- mit an alphabetical list of counties in the State of Kansas reached by rail- road, with name of town opposite each county referred to, in Tables VII, VIII, and IX, leaving the reader to compare rates proposed in Table IX with rates in force by authority of the Trans Missouri Railway Association (Table VIII), and rates authorized by the Railroad Commissioners (Table VII). The num- ber opposite the town, and under Table VII, VIII, or IX, refers to station num- ber given in tables. Name of County. Name of Town. Table. vii. viii. ix. Allen Iola 50 51 50 Anderson Garnett 33 34 33 Westphalia 107 107 107 Barber Medicine Lodge 67 70 66 Barton Great Bend 37 38 37 Bourbon Fort Scott 30 31 30 Brown Hiawatha 42 43 42 Butler El Dorado 25 25 25 Benton 8 8 8 Chase Strong City 96 98 96 Chautauqua Sedan 91 91 91 Cherokee Columbus 18 18 18 Cheyenne Bird City 9 9 9 Clark Ashland 5 5 5 Clay Clay Center 15 15 15 Cloud Concordia 19 19 19 Coffev Burlington 14 14 14 Gridley 39 40 39 Comanche Coldwater 17 17 17 Cowley Winfield 109 109 109 Crawford - Girard 34 35 34 Decatur Oberlin 75 76 75 Dickinson Abilene 1 1 1 Douglas Lawrence 55 57 55 Edwards Kinsley 54 56 54 Elk Howard 45 46 45 Ellis Hays City 41 42 41 Ellsworth Ellsworth 26 26 26 Finney Garden City 32 33 32 Ford Dodge City 23 23 23 Franklin. Ottawa 78 80 78 Geary .T n n eti on City 51 54 51 Grainfield 36 37 36 84 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. REFERENCE LIST — Continued. Name of County. Graham Gray Greeley Greenwood Hamilton.. Harper. Harvey Hodgeman. Jackson Jefferson.... Jewell Johnson .... Kearny Kingman .. Kiowa Labette Lane Lincoln. Linn Logan.... ^... Lyon Marion Marshall McPherson. Meade Miami Mitchell Montgomery... Morris Nemaha Neosho Ness Norton Osage Osborne Ottawa Pawnee Phillips Pottawatomie . Pratt Rawlins,.. Reno Republic- Rice Riley Rooks Rush Russell.... Saline Scott Sedgwick. Seward.... Shawnee.. Table. Name of Town. Hill City Ingalls ... Tribune Eureka Reece Neal Syracuse Anthony Newton Jetmore Holton Valley Falls.... Mankato Olathe Hartland Kingman Greensburg Parsons Mound Valley. Dighton Lincoln Pleasanton Blue Mound.... Winona Emporia Marion Blue Rapids.... McPherson Lindsborg Meade Center.. Paola Beloit Independence. Council Grove. Corning Erie Ness City Norton Lyndon Osborne Minneapolis.... Larned Phillipsburg.... Blaine.. Wamego Pratt Atwood Hutchinson ... Scandia Lyons Manhattan Stockton Rush Center... Russell Salina Scott City Wichita Arkalon Topeka vii. viii. ix. 43 44 43 49 50 49 101 101 29 29 29 1 85 85 70 70 1 97 99 97 3 3 3 73 74 73 52 52 52 44 45 44 102 100 102 64 66 64 76 77 76 40 41 40 53 55 53 38 39 38 80 80 69 72 69 22 22 22 58 61 58 83 84 83 11 11 11 110 110 110 27 27 27 65 68 65 12 12 12 62 64 62 60 60 66 69 66 79 81 79 7 7 7 48 49 48 21 21 21 20 20 20 28 28 28 72 73 72 74 75 74 59 62 59 77 79 77 68 71 68 56 58 56 82 83 82 10 10 10 104 104 104 84 85 84 6 6 6 47 48 47 89 89 89 61 63 61 63 65 63 95 97 95 86 86 86 87 87 87 88 88 88 90 90 90 108 108 108 4 4 4 99 99 CAMPBELL'S LETTER. 85 REFERENCE LIST — Concluded. Name op County. Name op Town. Sheridan Sherman Smith Stafford Sumner Thomas Trego Wabaunsee.. Wallace 'Washington, Wichita Wilson Woodson ELoxie Good land Smith Center.... Stafford Wellington Colby Wakeeney Alma Sharon Springs. Washington Leoti Buffalo Fredonia Neodesha Yates Center.... Toronto vii. 46 35 93 94 106 16 103 2 92 105 57 • 13 31 71 111 100 Table. viii. 47 36 94 95 106 16 102 2 92 105 59 13 32 111 ix. 46 35 93 94 106 16 103 2 92 105 57 13 31 71 111 100 [Published in the Nonconformist.] THE CAMPBELL LETTER. “I wish to present a few facts to the readers of the Nonconformist relating to railroads. I said facts, and I mean facts, not opinions. People in this feverish age have not the time to read every man’s opinion on the many im- portant questions of the day, but they do have the time to read statistical facts when presented in a concise manner. What my opinion relating to rail- roads may be is a matter of no importance whatever to the general public; but the actual facts relating to the transportation question as to reasonable rates is a matter of vast importance to the people generally. In this article I wish to present to the general public some facts that, however startling, are official. At a meeting of the railroad commissioners, held in the city of Washington May 28, 1890, a committee on reasonable rates was appointed, to report at the next convention of railroad commissioners. That committee consisted of W. B. Fleming, of Kentucky; Walker McLaurin, of Mississippi; David N. Mostiand, of Maine; J. B. Breathitt, of Missouri; and John King, of South Dakota. At a convention of railroad commissioners, held at the office of the Inter-State Commerce Commission, at Washington, March 3 and 4, 1891, Mr. Fleining, chairman of committee on reasonable rates, submitted a long and carefully-prepared report, in which the committee advocated the regula- tion of rates both by the national and State governments; and as a proof —5 86 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. of the necessity of such regulation, appended to that report the following statements as to the earnings of railroads in the last sixteen years: Year. Miles of road in opera- tion. Capitali- zation. Net traffic earnings per year. Net traffic earnings per mile. Mileage which entitles a revenue. Proportion of earnings per mile on road built at cost of $30,000 per mile. Proportion of earn- ings per mile on fictitious capital. 1874 69,273 $58,256 $189,570,958 $2,737 57 69,273 $1,409 10 $1,327 47 1875 71,759 61,652 185,506,437 2,585 13 68,694 1,258 00 1,327 13 1876 73,508 58,562 186,452,752 2,536 50 67,140 1,299 50 1,237 00 1877 74,112 60,678 170,976,697 2,307 00 64,460 1,142 00 1,165 00 1878 78,960 59,163 187,575,167 2,375 51 66,068 1,204 41 1,171 16 1879 79,009 57,730 216,544,999 2,740 76 62,560 1,424 10 1,316 66 1880 82,146 58,624 255,557,555 3,111 01 61,402 1,591 91 1,519 10 1881 92,971 60,445 272,406,785 2,930 02 66,965 1,455 02 1,475 00 1882 104,971 61,303 280,316,696 2,670 42 73,131 1,306 9J 1,363 52 1883 110,414 62,030* 293,367,285 2,656 07 72,415 1,285 54 1,370 53 1884 115,672 61,366 268,064,496 2,318 32 70,999 1,133 66 1,184 66 1885 123,320 61,398 269,493,981 2,185 32 72,390 1,067 75 1,117 57 1886 125,185 61,098 300,603,564 2,401 27 67,847 1,179 02 1,222 25 1887 137,028 58,603 334,989,104 2,444 67 72,335 1,251 67 1,193 00 1888 145,387 60,731 301,631,051 2,074 61 72,545 1,024 86 1,049 Year. ^ Earnings each year on fictitious capital. Earnings of road built subsequent to 1874 from revenue on fictitious capital Total earnings from fictitious capital, and from capital furnished by rail- way users, and road built therefrom. Miles of road built from tolls of fictitious capital, tolls, mileage preced- ing years. 1874 $91,957,829 91,165,867 $91,957,829 99,089,290 3,065 1875... $7,923,423 3,303 1876 82,196,298 16,152,432 98,348,730 3,278 1877 75,074,930 22,308,690 97,383,620 3,246 1878 77,344,577 30,689,989 108,034,566 3,601 1879 82,276,766 45,277,355 127,554,121 4,251 1880 93,234,752 64,617,581 157,852,333 5,262 1881 98,733,550 76,277,210 175,010,760 5,834 1882 99,678,766 85,098,274 184,777,040 6,159 1883 99,209,926 100,999,717 200,209,643 6,674 1884 84,077,689 103,628,904 187,706,593 6,257 1885 80,870,718 111,357,351 192,228,069 6,408 1886 82,903,995 137,748,854 220,652,849 7,355 1887 86,263,444 158,219,042 244,482,486 8,149 1888 86,125,770 151,174,756 237,300,526 7,910 $1,311,114,877 $1,111,473,578 $2,422,588,455 80,752 “The above tabulated statements, as I said before, were submitted to a con- vention of railroad commissioners, held in Washington the 3d and 4th of last March. The convention was presided over by Thomas M. Cooley, and was composed of very able men, gathered from all parts of the United States; and the above tabulated statements were unanimously indorsed by the convention, and are, therefore, the very best authority in the United States on the ques- CAMPBELL'S LETTER . 87 tion of railway earnings. Now, as a number of very prominent Republicans of the Kansas Senate, in the last legislative session, declared that the railroads of the country were not making expenses, in the face of the foregoing facts it will be eminently proper for those gentlemen to arise up and explain why they made those statements. In the event of their failing to do so, the people of Kansas will have to search somewhere behind the throne for the prompting motive. 45 It is plain to see by the foregoing facts that the railroads of the United States are sapping the life of the nation very rapidly, notwithstanding what the Republican Senate has said. The next question is, What proportion of those fictitious earnings have been wrung from the sunburned farmers of the 1 Sunflower State?’ In order to understand just what proportion we pay, we will compare the freight rates paid by some of the Western States with the rates prevailing in Kansas. It would not be fair to take the rates of New England, New York, or even Ohio, as their conditions are different; therefore we will take the two agricultural States of Illinois and Iowa. Their roads have cost more than the roads in Kansas, for the reason that there were more cuts, grades, and more bridging. And, as a matter of course, it costs more to keep their roads in repair than the roads of this State. The facts are, there is no country in the world where railroads can be built and operated so cheaply as in Kansas. I will not give the rates on all the different classes, as it would re- quire too much space and labor, but will compare six different classes, which will clearly show the difference in rates. “The following table is a comparison of the freight rates in the States of Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois: Distance in miles STATES. IN CENTS PER 100 POUNDS. CATTLE. SOFT COAL. Less than car loads. 1 i Car loads. s s 5 Si S §* O cs Merchan- dise — 1st class Fifth class Class D. Wheat a s a. Ci Cb 5S S' Cc a 3 a. S' < [Iowa 14 5 3 4 10 50 34 10 A Kansas 15 7 4 5 10 00 60 1 [Illinois 15 6 3 4 11 00 45 1 [Iowa 16 5 4 5 12 60 42 20 A Kansas 20 9 5 6 12 00 85 1 [Illinois 18 8 4 5 14 00 55 i [Iowa.. 17 6 4 5 13 50 50 30 4 Kansas 24 11 • 6 6 14 00 95 i [ Illinois 22 9 1 4 5 15 00 65 88 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa...... Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois., Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa..... Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. Iowa Kansas. Illinois. COMPARISON OF FREIGHT RATES — Continued. STATES. SOFT IN CENTS PER 100 POUNDS. CATTLE. COAL. Less than car Car loads S3 S ft ft. On loads. -s © ^ § ci S3 S3 © a* g a ?8 OP j CD O H> sT p- : a i a Sl’jr S& S' CO ^ CO CO CD & : 3 • a. : 3 : ^ •“ 1 s CO « rt* ! 8 : © . © : w i ; a : s • : 61 : ^ 18 6 4 5 15 00 58 28 13 6 7 16 00 1 10 26 10 5 6 16 50 75 20 7 5 6 16 50 66 32 15 7 8 18 00 1 15 29 11 5 6 17 50 85 20 7 5 6 17 50 74 36 17 8 8 20 00 1 25 31 12 5 7 18 50 89 21 7 5 7 18 50 82 40 19 8 8 22 00 1 35 32 12 6 7 19 50 93 22 7 5 7 19 50 88 44 22 8 9 24 00 1 40 34 13 6 8 20 50 96 23 8 5 7 20 50 94 48 25 9 10 26 00 1 55 36 14 6 8 21 50 98 24 8 6 8 21 50 1 00 52 27 10 10 27 00 1 56 38 15 7 8 22 50 1 00 25 8 6 8 22 50 1 03 t 55 29 11 11 29 00 1 60 40 15 7 9 23 50 1 02 27 9 6 8 23 10 1 06 57 31 12 11 31 00 1 80 42 16 7 9 24 15 1 04 28 10 7 8 23 90 1 09 59 33 .12 12 33 00 2 00 43 16 7 9 25 40 1 06 30 10 7 9 24 70 1 12 61 34 12 13 35 00 2 10 44 17 8 9 26 20 1 08 32 11 7 9 25 50 1 15 63 35 13 14 36 00 2 15 45 18 8 10 27 00 1 10 33 11 8 9 26 30 1 18 65 36 14 14 37 00 2 20 46 18 8 10 27 55 1 12 CAMPBELL'S LETTER, 89 COMPARISON OF FREIGHT RATES— Concluded. Distance in miles... STATES. IN CENTS PER 100 POUNDS. CATTLE. SOFT COAL. Less than car loads. Car loads. In dollars and cents per car In dollars and cents per car Merchan- dise — 1st class Fifth class Class D 3 tr a> S3 (Iowa 35 12 8 10 27 10 1 21 170 67 37 14 15 38 00 2 35 (Illinois 46 18 8 10 28 25 1 14 (Iowa 36 13 8 10 27 90 1 24 180 < Kansas 69 39 15 15 39 00 2 35 (Illinois 47 18 9 11 29 00 1 16 (Iowa 38 13 9 10 28 70 ' 1 27 190 < Kansas 71 40 15 15 40 00 2 40 (Illinois 48 19 9 11 29 50 1 18 [Iowa 40 14 9 10 29 50 1 30 200 ■< Kansas 73 41 16 15 41 00 2 45 (Illinois 48 19 9 11 30 00 1 20 (Iowa 43 15 10 11 31 30 1 34 220 -< Kansas 75 43 17 15 42 00 2 60 (Illinois 50 20 9 11 31 00 1 24 (Iowa 46 16 10 11 33 10 1 38 240 < Kansas 77 45 18 15 43 00 2 75 (Illinois 51 20 10 12 32 00 1 28 (Iowa 49 17 11 12 34 90 1 42 260 -< Kansas 79 47 19 16 44 00 2 90 1 Illinois 52 21 10 12 33 00 1 32 (Iowa 52 18 11 12 36 70 1 46 280 -< Kansas 81 49 20 16 45 00 3 05 (Illinois 54 21 10 12 34 00 1 36 (Iowa 56 20 12 12 38 50 1 50 300 -< Kansas 83 51 21 16 46 00 3 25 (Illinois 55 22 11 13 35 00 1 40 (Iowa 57 21 13 14 39 50 1 54 320 ■< Kansas 85 53 22 17 47 00 3 45 (Illinois 56 23 11 13 36 00 1 43 (Iowa 58 22 14 14 40 50 1 58 340 -< Kansas 87 55 23 17 48 00 3 70 (Illinois 57 23 11 13 37 00 1 46 (Iowa 59' 23 15 15 41 50 1 62 360 -< Kansas 92 59 25 18 49 00 3 90 (Illinois 58 23 11 14 38 00 1 49 (Iowa 60 24 16 15 42 50 1 66 380 '< Kansas 1 00 65 28 18 50 00 4 00 (Illinois 59 24 12 14 29 00 1 52 (Iowa 61 25 17 16 43 50 1 70 400 Kansas 1 10 70 31 19 51 00 4 10 (Illinois 60 24 12 14 40 00 1 55 90 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. “In giving the foregoing rates, we have left out the fractions of cents, as it would save the printer an immense amount of work, while the above is near enough for all practical purposes. The rates given for Iowa and Illinois are for class A roads. “ The foregoing comparison of rates is taken directly from the rate schedules in force in the respective States. Yours truly, W. M. Campbell. STATE PRINTING. It is charged by the old party press that the People’s Party failed to reform the extravagance and wastefulness in the matter of State Printing. Let us see: It has been the custom under the rule of the old parties for each State officer, head of department, board, commission, or their clerks, to make requi- sitions on the State Printer direct for anything they thought they needed, or might need, and it was the duty of the Printer to furnish it — subject to the provisions of section 6675, General Statutes, but which section has been con- tinually and persistently violated by the old party State Printers — winked at and condoned by the old party Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Aud- itor, who have permitted large deficiencies to be made each term, amounting to $183,000 for the past four fiscal years. To make section 6675, G. S., operative and of full force, the People’s Party legislators attached a “rider” to the bill making an appropriation for State printing for the fiscal years 1892-93, in which they create a Board of Public Printing through which all requisitions must come, and a record of them kept, with absolute powers and control of the kind, quantity and quality of the work to be paid for out of the fund appropriated. We here quote the sections creating this board, defining its powers and duties, from pages 79, 80, of the Session Laws of 1891 — also section 6675, General Statutes 1889 : Seo. 2. All printing done under the provisions of this act shall have first been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State , who is hereby made the sole authority to issue requisitions upon the State Printer for printing required by any officer or any institution of the State of Kansas, subject to the approval of the Attorney General. All printing, book-making and binding required by any State officer, State institution, board, or commission, shall be done by the State Printer: Provided , That no printing shall be done except such as in the judgment of the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and State Treasurer, are necessary for the general information: Provided, further, A majority of said persons may decide as to what shall be printed. The binding and printing provided for under this section, not otherwise specifically provided for, shall be construed to mean plain pamphlet work of such quality and style as shall conform to the demands of sound business economy, and shall be done ac- cording to specifications furnished by the Secretary of State, by and with the ad- STATE PRINTING. 91 vice and consent of the Attorney General: Provided , That the Secretary of State shall not consider any requisition for printing unless the same is signed by the head of the department, board or commission from which such requi- sition shall issue, or the first assistant of the various State departments. Seo. 4. That in all cases in which by the provisions of this act appropria- tions are made for the specific purpose named or stated, the officer or person having charge of said appropriation shall not in any case, by contract, act, or proceeding, obligate the State at any time to pay a larger sum than herein spe- cifically appropriated; and that in no case shall the amount paid exceed the amount provided by law. Sec. 6675, G. S. 1889, page 2038: That any officer or agent of the State who shall be empowered to expend any public moneys, or to direct such expendi- tures, is hereby prohibited from making any contract for the erection or repair of any building, or for any other purpose , whereby the expenditure of any greater sum of money shall be contemplated , agreed to , or required , than is ex- pressly authorized by law; and any officer or agent of the State violating this law shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement of the amount in excess of that expressly authorized by law, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by con- finement and hard labor not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not less than six months. (Laws 1886, ch. 103, \ 1, Feb. 27.) CHAPTER II. THE COFFEYVILLE DYNAMITE INVESTIGATION. The history of the explosion of a box of explosive material, at Coffeyville, Kansas, October 18, 1888, under circumstances that indicated the deepest villainy behind it, is familiar to every citizen of Kansas, and many thousands beyond the borders of this State. That the State Senate refused in 1889 to investigate, or rather, Senator Lockard had then refused to present to the Senate a petition asking for investigation, is also well known. It is also well known that the county attorney of Cowley county refused to act upon a com- plaint sworn out against parties, a part of whom were residents of Cowley county, giving as his reason “a want of jurisdiction.” It was claimed in the complaint, sworn out before Justice of the Peace Salem Fbuts, of Arkansas City, Kansas, that a conspiracy had been entered into between E. P. Greer, of Cowley county, Bion S. Hutchins and C. A. Henrie, of Shawnee county, and H. M. Upham, of Montgomery county. Surely the courts of either of these counties would have had jurisdiction, and especially Cowley county, as it is the home of not only a conspirator, but also of the intended victims of the con- spiracy. The accidental explosion of the infernal machine in Montgomery could not make that the only county having jurisdiction. Yet such decisions were made by Republican officers, to prevent investigation till the statute of limitation should save their friends from prosecution. Ceaselessly, by pen and tongue, did the intended victims try to induce pros- ecution, either directly or indirectly, by challenging a suit for libel if the charges made were not true. All efforts failed till the election of 1890 secured a majority of Populists in the Kansas House of Representatives. During the first week of the legislative session resolutions demanding an investiga- tion were drawn up by C. Vincent, and placed in the hands of Representative J. L. Andrews, a member from Cowley county. Inasmuch as the senatorial contest was yet undecided, and the temper of the House yet unsettled, it was deemed prudent to withhold these resolutions until after the senatorial elec- tion, which was done. ( 92 ) COFFEYVILLE DYNAMITE INVESTIGATION. 93 The next week Mr. Andrews introduced the following concurrent resolu- tion No. 23; House Jour. pp. 275 and 317: Whereas, On the 18th day of October, 1888, a package of dynamite or other deadly explo- sives, was deposited in the office of the Pacific Express Company, at Coffeyville, Kansas, and directed to be sent to Winfield, Kansas; and Whereas, The dynamite did explode while in the custody of H. M. Upham, and danger- ously, and well-nigh fatally, wounded two innocent women ; and Whereas, It is charged that a person is now in the employ of the State of Kansas, who it is charged was implicated in a conspiracy against the lives and property of certain citizens of the State of Kansas ; and Whereas, It has been charged the Kepublican State Central Committee of Kansas were instigators of a conspiracy to destroy the property, reputation, and possibly the lives, of some of our people for political effect: therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives , the Senate concurring therein , That a committee of five on the part of the House and three on the part of the Senate be appointed, to make a full investigation of all the facts pertaining to this outrage, with a view that the guilty may be punished, the innocent vindicated, and the lives of our people protected. This was messaged to the Senate on the same day (Senate Jour, p.250), and called up for action on the following Monday (Senate Jour. p. 272). Upon motion of Mr. Gillett, of Kingman, the following was inserted as a studied in- sult to the House : “Whereas, Parties making such charges have withheld from the public all evidence of their authority to make the same, and have used the information they claim to have for political ef- fect, thereby making evidence of crime a basis of political agitation, instead of attempting to bring criminals to justice.” This amendment, with others, was sent to the House (House Jour. pp. 365, 366). Mr. Elder moved to non-concur in the above “Whereas,” but before a vote was taken, Mr. Reeder moved the adoption of the following substitute, which motion carried, and the substitute was adopted : “Whereas, It has been charged in certain prints, and on the floor of this House, that the aforesaid alleged crime has not been investigated in the courts of the State, by reason of the refusal of certain officers to perform their sworn duties.” This action in turn was messaged back to the Senate the following day, when the Senate receded from its amendment (292), accepted the action of the House, and appointed the Senate members of the committee, C. H. Kimball, J. G. Mohler, and Ed. Carroll. Mr. Kimball secured the appointment of his private stenographer as the official stenographer, assumed control of the preparation of the report for the printer and the proof-reading of the same, and now, when the'official volume comes from the State Printer, (C. C. Baker,) on page 2 appears the Senate “Whereas” non-concurred in by the House , and receded from by the Senate. (Correction of typographical error; see p. 159.) Senator Kimball is directly responsible for thus falsifying the record in an attempt to cast odium upon political opponents. Here we insert a letter of inquiry to Senator Kimball, offering him a chance 94 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. to explain this matter, but up to date of going to press, September 15th, no reply has been received: OFFICE OF AMERICAN NONCONFORMIST. H. & L. VINCENT, economic quarterly. PUBLISHERS. COWLEY COUNTY TELEGRAM. ALLIANCE CIRCULATING LIBRARY. Winfield, Kansas, August 13, 1891. Hon. C. H. Kimball , Parsons , Kansas: My Dear Sir — Deferring to House Concurrent Resolution No. 23, providing for joint com- mittee of which you were chairman on the part of the Senate, you will notice by reference to page 272 of Senate Journal that your body amended said resolution by the adoption of a reso- lution seriously reflecting upon certain persons. By reference to House Journal, page 366, you will notice that Mr. Reeder proposed a substi- tute for this Senate amendment which was adopted. Referring now to Senate Journal, page 292, you will notice this resolution messaged back to the Senate, and immediately following this the action of the Senate in receding from its amend- ment, under motion of Senator Osborn; this in turn followed by the appointment of the Sen- ate members of the committee. Inasmuch as you had control of the printing of the published volume containing report of said committee, what explanation have you to offer for the fact that the resolutions, as pub- lished therein, contain this Senate resolution which was receded from (Senate Journal page 292)? An early reply will greatly oblige, Yours sincerely, C. Vincent. It may be as well to notice, in this connection, something of the methods used to secure a seat for Mr. Kimball in the Senate, to which seat he is not rightfully entitled. In the fall of 1888, George Campbell and C. H. Kimball were opposing can- didates, on the Union Labor and Republican tickets respectively. In the elec- tion, Mr. Campbell received 2,793 votes, and Mr. Kimball 2,790. In Iuka precinct were cast 46 votes for Mr. Campbell, but the clerk, in footing up the tallies, wrote 41; this footing being counted by the board made Mr. Camp- bell’s vote appear only 2,788. When, a few days later, this error was discov- ered, the chairman of the board, a Republican, refused to reconvene the board and correct the error, “because Mr. Kimball was not willing he should;” and the matter stood that way till winter, when a contest was made. Mr. Kimball stood on his “dignity, and the face of the returns,” refusing even to appeal to the ballot-box for a recount of the votes, as any honest man naturally would. This of itself showed that he did not himself believe the plea he set up, that “five extra tallies might have been forged.” If forged on one book, the other book would have convicted the forger, but he never called in the other to support his theory of the case, nor dared to appeal to a recount. For four years he has held a seat belonging to another man, misrepresenting a district that defeated him at the ballot-box only to have its choice counted out by the returning board. And this in Kansas! In the contest before the Elections Committee (T. B. Murdock, chairman), COFFEYVILLE DYNAMITE INVESTIGATION. 95 the committee say: “The only question involved in this contest is the num- ber of votes received in said precinct ( Iuka) by the said George Campbell. . . . Your committee find that the claim of George Campbell, that he re- ceived in said Iuka precinct 46 votes for State Senator, instead of 41 votes, has not been established by any evidence satisfactory to the committee; Sen. Jour. 1889, p. 237. The brief of Mr. Campbell in support of his case contains conclusive evidence in court decisions, and even if this were lacking, the Sen- ate committee had the power to call for the ballots and order a recount of them. But no; they well knew such fairness would unseat their partisan and “annoy” the immaculate Republican Senate by the presence of a Union Labor legislator, which “annoyance” they were unwilling to endure. The following letter tells the whole story: Oswego, Kas., July 3d, 1891. Mr. C. Vincent , Winfield , Kansas — Dear Sir: Your letter in regard to the Kimball and Campbell matter received a few days ago. I have examined the matter carefully, having closely examined all the poll-books, and find there were 2,793 votes polled for Mr. Campbell and 2,790 for Mr. Kimball for State Senator in 1888. The board only counted 2,788 for Mr. Campbell. The precinct of Iuka, in Neosho township, polled 46 for Mr. Campbell, while the clerks only car- ried out in figures 41 votes for Mr. Campbell instead of 46. Mr. Goodwin, the Union Labor commissioner, and myself, were not satisfied with the count, and did not want to adjourn till we looked the poll-books over again; but Mr. Brooks, chairman of the board, and Mr. Jones said they would adjourn, telling me to look the books over and if I found a mistake they would come back. I immediately put the books in the safe, under lock, so no person could get them. Some days later, ten or twelve men about the town and court-house, some of whom were Re- publicans, and Mr. Campbell, desired to look the books over and see what the vote was. I told Mr. Campbell that Commissioner Jones was in town and to see him, and if he was willing, he and the other men could have the books, provided there were some Republicans there to be satisfied that the count was fair. Mr. Campbell saw Commissioner Jones, who told him to go ahead and look the books over, “and if you find a mistake, let me know.” A dozen of us were present, carefully examined the books, and found Campbell had 2,793 votes, giving him 3 major- ity after giving Mr. Kimball 74 votes which he had stamped on Democratic tickets and peddled out to unsuspecting Democrats. Mr. Sharp, the Democratic candidate for Senator, had with- drawn a few weeks before, and Mr. Kimball tried to fill the vacancy by stamping his name in red ink on the Democratic tickets, and thus deceived some Democrats, as they have since stated. Mr. Brooks, the chairman of the board, was notified of the error in the count and requested to re- convene the board and correct it. He said he would see Mr. Kimball, and, if he was willing , he would correct the error. He saw Mr. Kimball, and he said that Mr. Kimball was not willing to have the board meet, and therefore he would not reconvene the board, and thus Mr. Campbell was counted out. Last summer (1890) Mr. Wm. Cook, sheriff of this county, was in the county clerk’s office. They got into a controversy over the count-out, when the sheriff bantered them to get the ballots of Iuka precinct and count them to satisfy themselves. W. W. Cook, deputy county clerk, said all right, if the county clerk, Mr. Tilton, was willing. Mr. Tilton said all right, as the ballots had now been kept longer than the time required by law. Sheriff Cook said it was not fair to, have two Republicans and only one Labor man at the count, and with their permission he would call in W. H. Porter, United Labor county treasurer. They replied that they had no objection, so Mr. Porter was called in and ballots were got, W. W. Cook, dep- uty county clerk, calling the vote, the county clerk and county treasurer keeping tally, 96 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. while the sheriff looked over the ballots as the deputy county clerk called, and there were found to be 46 votes for Mr. Campbell, instead of 41 votes as counted by the board. Thus it is apparent the Republican board were determined on the count-out. Enclosed I send you a brief of the case, as passed on by the Senate committee, which will give details in full. Very respectfully, W. J. Millikin, ex- County Clerk. Ed. Carroll (Dem.), from Leavenworth, was on the Elections Committee, and voted to adopt the report of the committee. ( Sen. Jour. 1889, p. 237.) But this is a digression, and would be out of place here, were it not to show the conscienceless character of the man who would retain a senatorial seat when he knew the people rejected him. His real character here stands out plainly, and will counteract whatever reputation for fairness he may have gained with casual acquaintances. And he is the author of the Republican report. This fact alone would discredit it among fair-minded people, but, in order that all may know the extent to which unbridled Republican partisan- ship can go, we will dissect this report in the following pages. There are so many glaring, “garbled extracts,” and distorted statements, that if an attempt were made to notice all of them together some would escape notice, (and it is not claimed that all have been discovered and exposed here, but attention is called to enough to show the trend of Republican “statesmanship.”) Accord- ingly, the editorial remarks are interspersed throughout the reports, as occa- sion seemed to require. With this brief introduction, the reports of the committee are here presented, (copied from the official document,) asking the public to keep clearly in mind the four theories, one of which must account for the explosion. These are: First. Spontaneous combustion of chemicals in the laboratory of Mr. Up- ham. Second. Malicious intent upon the part of Mr. Upham, and a desire to destroy his family. X Third. Malicious intent upon the part of the Yidettes, and an attempt to punish Greer for his publication of their ritual, and to prevent further simi- lar publications. Fourth. Malicious intent on the part of Republican managers — Greer, Hutchins, Henrie, et al. — to effect the financial and political downfall of the Vincent brothers, and through them of the Union-Labor party, by “proving” them to be dangerous persons, the climax to be reached when dynamite was to be found in possession of the a^ove firm; which dynamite exploding pre- maturely at Coffeyville thwarted the plot, and nearly murdered two innocent women. One of these theories must account for the explosion, and inasmuch as posi- tive evidence is produced that the first two are untenable, and no evidence at all in support of the third, it necessarily follows that most of the time of the REPORT OF WHOLE COMMITTEE . 97 committee was occupied in examining the evidence for or against the fourth, or last theory. There are four reports — one signed by the full committee, one by the Re- publican members, one by the Populist members, and one by the Democratic member (Mr. Carroll) — and they are presented here in the above order, with comments. REPORT OE WHORE COMMITTEE SO FAR AS IT WAS ABLE TO AGREE. “Topeka, Kansas, May 8, 1891. “Hon. Lyman U. Humphrey, Governor of the State of Kansas — Sir: The joint committee of the Legislature of 1891, appointed under House concur- rent resolution No. 23, to investigate the facts connected with the explosion which took place at Coffeyville, in this State, October 18, 1888, was by a sub- sequent concurrent resolution authorized to continue its investigation after the adjournment of the Legislature, and directed to make its report — to be printed with the evidence — to you. In accordance therewith, the commit- tee submits herewith the record of its proceedings and the evidence taken during such investigation, together with its report, in so far as the com- mittee has been able to agree; and to which are appended statements em- bodying the views of the members of the committee upon those questions concerning which the committee has been unable to agree. “As this investigation is somewhat political in its character, it may be proper to say that the committee, as originally appointed on the part of the House, consisted of Representatives J. L. Andrews, Ezra Carey, O. M. Rice, C. C. Vandeventer, and C. N. Bishoff, the first four being members of the People’s Party, and the last named a Republican. Mr. Andrews resigned as a member of the committee, February 23d, and was succeeded by Representa- tive M. Senn. On the 25th of the same month Mr. Vandeventer resigned, and was succeeded by Representative Geo. W. Crumley; and on the 2d of March Mr. Rice resigned, and was succeeded by Representative T. M. Templeton; the members appointed being of the same political party as those whom they succeeded. [All these resignations were made on account of sickness. — Ed.] The members of the committee on the part of the Senate were Senators C. H. Kimball, J. G. Mohler, and Ed. Carroll, the first two being Republicans, and the last named a Democrat. Mr. Andrews, who had been elected chair- man of the committee, was, upon his resignation, succeeded in that position by Mr. Carey. Mr. Andrews died at Topeka within a few days after his resig- nation. We pause to pay a tribute of respect to his memory, and to the ability and fairness which characterized his action while a member and chairman of the committee; and to tender our sympathy to his relatives and friends in their bereavement. “The committee at its first meeting, February 13, 1891, concluded to ask the Legislature to enact a law requiring witnesses summoned before legislative investigating committees to answer all questions put to them touching the subject matter of the investigation, even though their answers might tend to criminate them, protecting them from the effect of any such incriminating answers, and providing that the willful giving of false testimony before any such committee should be punished as perjury; and the committee decided, 98 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. if practicable, to await the enactment of such a law before taking any testi- mony. A bill introduced in the Senate by a member of the committee, cover- ing the ground indicated, was passed by that body on the 16th day of February, and was afterwards passed by the House, and took effect February 23, 1891. On the next day thereafter, the committee commenced he’aring the testimony. “It seemed to the committee not only fair to all parties, but as likely to re- sult in a more thorough investigation of the matter, to allow the parties who had made the charges referred to in the resolution under which the commit- tee was appointed, and who $ere still insisting on the truth of the charges, to take the affirmative of establishing them, in so far as they were able to pre- sent any evidence tending to support them; and to allow the parties against whom the charges were made to take the negative side of the question, and to offer such evidence as they might have bearing upon the subject matter. For convenience, these two sides have been generally designated in the proceed- ings and evidence as the prosecution and the defense, respectively. “For the purpose of ' still further promoting and facilitating a thorough investigation into all the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject- matter, the parties interested were authorized by the committee to be repre- sented by attorneys — Messrs. H. G. Webb and B. S. Henderson being employed to represent the prosecution and Messrs. F. B. Dawes and Charles Curtis to represent the defense. The action of the committee in this respect was seemingly approved by the Legislature in making an appropriation to remunerate the attorneys for their services. The attorneys so employed ex- amined and cross-examined the witnesses, members of the committee, how- ever, extending or continuing such examination at pleasure. “The committee has earnestly endeavored to carry out and accomplish the purpose indicated by the resolution-under which it was appointed. It has secured the attendance of every person known or supposed to have any knowledge that would throw any light upon the subject-matter. It has secured the presence of witnesses from Ohio, Michigan and Colorado by ad- vancing traveling expenses, etc., and from various parts of the State by sub- pena. No person whose attendance as a witness was desired, even though beyond the reach of the compulsory process, has failed or refused to respond to a request for his attendance. These witnesses, more than seventy-five in number, have been carefully and searchingly examined and cross-examined in the presence of and by members of the committee. Much of the testimony offered seemed to have little or no bearing upon the subject of the investiga- tion, but it has been received by the committee in the hope that it would afford some clue by which other testimony might be secured that would be relevant and material. The fact that on the 18th day of October, 1888, at about half-past 4 o’clock in the afternoon, an explosion occurred at the house of Mr. H. M. Upham (the Pacific express agent at Coffeyville), whereby his wife and adopted daughter, Mabel, were severely injured and a portion of his house shattered and blown to pieces; the fact that Mr. Upham, as he stated at the time, attributed the explosion to the contents of a box which he said had been left with him that day by a man who gave the name of P. Jason, to be shipped to L. or J. Louden at Winfield, Kansas; and many other details connected therewith, were undisputed and well known to the public about the time the unfortunate occurrence happened. In this connection, a brief resume of the testimony bearing directly upon the explosion itself and the effects thereof may not be out of place. REPORT OF WHOLE COMMITTEE. 99 “That part of Mr. Upham’s testimony was in substance as follows: He tes- tified that about 11 o’clock in the forenoon of the day of the explosion, October 18, 1888, a man, whom he describes, brought a pine box, about eight or nine inches square, into the express office; and, after making some inquiry about when the trains would leave, and being informed that the first train that car- ried express left at 4:30 the next morning, said he wanted to send the box by express to J. Louden, at Winfield, Kansas, paid the charges, 25 cents, and said he wanted' no receipt for the package. That when he, Mr. Upham, first asked this man his name he said it was no matter; and when again requested to give his name, gave the name of P. Jason. Said the box contained glass, medicine in bottles, and he wanted it handled very carefully — not thrown on the dray, or left at the depot; and being assured that it would be handled carefully, turned and went out as Mr. Upham was fastening a tag on the box. Mr. Up- ham described the man who shipped the box as being about his height — five feet six inches; weighing 140 or 150 pounds; about forty years old; dark com- plexioned; small, black eyes, which he frequently opened and closed when talk- ing with him; full dark beard; mark of having worn glasses on the bridge of his nose; dressed in dark or black cloth clothing, worn shiny — not working clothes; soft hat, and shoes. Mr. Upham says that he entered the box on the forwarding book’, made out a way-bill, left it on his desk, put the box in his wagon, drove home, arrived there a little before noon, put the box in a small, dark room, which he had partitioned off from the laundry or summer-kitchen, and which he, being an amateur photographer, used in connection with his work as such. That about 1 o’clock he went back to his office, returned to his residence again at 2:30 or 3 o’clock, and when Mabel returned from school asked her and Mrs. Upham to go with him and see Mabel’s picture developed. That the three went into the dark room; he closed the door, put the plate in the solution, went out to get a pail of water, and just as he, returning with the water, had entered the summer kitchen the explosion occurred. (28, 24, 25.) The room, he says, was immediately filled with a sulphurous smoke, but there was no fire. “Beyond the injury to Mrs. Upham and Mabel, the effect of the explosion was to demolish the dark room; shatter and force off some of the boards com- posing the outer walls of the kitchen; to break a hole through the north door of the kitchen, about seven feet away from the dark room, and through the south door, which was about five feet from the dark room; raise the roof so that it stood open at the comb; break a hole through the kitchen floor about three feet in diameter, and through the ceiling of the cellar; breaking a large pine box which was in the cellar directly under the dark room; and breaking a, hole in the cement floor of the cellar. “Mrs. Upham’s testimony is corroborative of her husband’s, as to the box being brought home and placed in the dark room, the invitation to go into the dark room to see the plate developed, and the fact that Mr. Upham was out after water when the explosion occurred. She testifies that she did not see the box after it was taken into the dark room, but that she saw it taken in there, and that she heard a sissing noise for a second or a moment just before the explosion; and beyond that she knows nothing as to the cause of the ex- plosion, except what she was told after she Jiad partially recovered. “Mabel Upham’s testimony is corroborative of Mr. Upham’s as to the invi- tation to go to the dark room to see the plate developed, and the fact that he was after water when the explosion occurred. She remembers hearing the 100 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . \ report of the explosion, but nothing further; says she did not hear the siss- ing noise to which Mrs. Upham testified, and did not s4e the box — never heard of it, in fact, until after she had so far recovered that persons talked to her about it. She says it was not her picture, but an outdoor picture, which Mr. Upham was developing. (Record, 17-22.) “Dr. Wood, the physician who attended Mrs. Upham and Mabel, testified that after Mabel had partially recovered from the shock, about eight or ten days after the explosion, she told him, in response to his questioning, that she and her mamma were standing very close together in the dark room, and her mamma hit a little box that was sitting on the floor with her toe, when there was a sissing noise and it exploded (record, 569); but Mabel herself testified that she never saw or heard of the box until after she had practically recovered, when she was told about it, and that she heard no noise -preceding the explosion. ( Record, 20, 21.) “The wounds received by Mrs. Upham, caused by the explosion, were numer- ous and very severe. The flesh was nearly all blown or torn from her left foot and ankle, the cords even being torn and cut away, and the muscles of the left arm and leg torn and lacerated, with cuts and punctured wounds on other parts of her person. The injuries received by Mabel were also very severe. The bones of her right ankle were broken, and a part of one bone was blown away, with numerous wounds where the flesh was torn, lacerated, and cut. “Dr. Wood testified that in those wounds upon Mrs. Upham and Mabel, he found particles of bran, chopped oats, wood fiber, shreds of clothing, small pieces of glass, etc. “As to just what it was that exploded, or caused this explosion, whether it was accidental or intentional, innocent or criminal, and if the latter, who was the criminal, and what was the motive, were questions about which there have been many opinions. “One theory has been that the explosion resulted either from the careless or improper use of chemicals or explosives used in photography — Mr. Upham being an amateur photographer — or was the culmination of a deliberate plan on his part to destroy his wife and possess himself of her property; and that the story about the box being left for shipment to Winfield was an invention of Mr. Upham’s, to shield himself from the blame or suspicion that would rest upon him in case the truth was known or suspected. “Another theory has been that it was the work of members of a secret, oath-bound organization, known as the National Order of Yidettes. That the dynamite or explosive, whatever it was, was intended by members of this order, for use in blowing up the office of the Winfield Courier , for the purpose of preventing a further expose that was about to be published, or in revenge for a partial expose that had been published, of the secrets of this order; and that the explosion of the box at Coffeyville was premature and accidental. “Still another theory has had its adherents, who openly charged that the explosion was a part of a plan, or the result of a conspiracy to which the Republican State Central Committee, through its officers, Henry Booth, chair- man, and Bion S. Hutchins, secretary, and other prominent Republicans in the State, were parties. That in order to give additional emphasis, or dra- matic effect to the expose of the Yidettes, which was about to be published simultaneously by many of the Republican papers of the State, it had been planned to have an explosion at Winfield, whereby the office of the Courier, the paper first publishing the expose, was to be destroyed; that a part of the REPUBLICAN REPORT. 101 dynamite was to be secreted in or about the office of the Nonconformist , a paper published by the Vincent brothers, to be found there after the explo- sion, so as to convict them, and other members of the Videttes, of being dyna- miters and anarchists as had been charged. That the dynamite was shipped for that purpose, the explosion at Coffeyville being premature and uninten- tional. That Ed. P. Greer, the editor of the Winfield Courier , and C. A. Henrie were parties to this conspiracy, the latter being the man who delivered the box to Mr. Upham at Coffeyville, and who was rewarded for his part in the plot, and for his silence, by an appointment as clerk in the Labor Bureau. “As to what are the true answers to the questions suggested, or the true theory upon which to account for this explosion, the committee is unable to agree, and, as before stated, the several opinions entertained will be hereto appended. C. H. Kimball, J. G. Mohleb, Edward Carroll, Members of the Committee on the part of the Senate. Ezra Carey, M. Senn, G. W. Crumley, C. N. Bishoef, T. M. Templeton,' Members of the Committee on the part of the House.” REPORT OF SENATORS KIMBALL AND MOHLER, AND REPRESENTATIVE BISHOFF, RE- PUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. • [ In the analysis of the reports, where figures are unchallenged, it is con- ceded that the evidence warrants the conclusions drawn, and where we differ, we quote the evidence in support of our position. — Ed.] “Topeka, Kansas, May 9, 1891. “To Hon. Lyman U. Humphrey, Governor of the State of Kansas — Sir: The undersigned, members of the joint committee appointed to investigate what is known as the Coffeyville explosion, in addition to those matters con- tained in the report subscribed by the entire committee, submit the following report, containing — “First: Some special findings as to the charges made or recited in the res- olutions under which the committee was appointed. “ Second : Some general observations, for the purpose of grouping together certain facts, and preserving in history, what is now generally known and understood, that this investigation, instead of being instituted for the laud- able purpose of exposing and punishing a crime, was urged and advocated to gratify feelings of personal hatred, and a desire for revenge; and was taken up and foisted upon the people of this State by the Alliance party, at an ex- pense of $12,000 or more, for political buncombe merely — for the sole pur- pose of endeavoring to smirch the Republican party, and gain some political advantage. “Third: As the resolutions charge that a person now in the employ of the State was implicated in the conspiracy which resulted in the explosion; and —6 102 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. as it was and is a matter of public knowledge that Mr. C. A. Henrie, a clerk in the Burea.u of Labor, was the employe against whom this charge was directed; and in view of the fact that the four members of this committee belonging to the party responsible for this investigation have, in secret ses- sion to which no other member of the committee was admitted, prepared a report, which they refused to exhibit to the committee, and which they have announced their intention of secreting until our report is submitted (p. 606), but in which report it is understood that they have found that the charges made or recited in the resolution referred to are true, and have endeavored to sustain such findings by inferences, deductions, and extracts from the tes- timony; and in view of the further fact, that these members of the commit- tee, or some of them, have from the beginning of this investigation indicated that they believed that Mr. Henrie was the man who delivered to Mr. Upham the box which exploded; and that the only way that the Republican party could be connected with the crime was through Mr. Henrie — in view of these facts, we have thought best to append a third subdivision, which will be de- voted to some further findings and conclusions, not only as to the whereabouts of Mr. Henrie on the 18th day of October, 1888, but as to other relevant mat- ters with reference to the testimony supporting them. With this preliminary statement, we submit the following: “I. — Special Findings. — 1st. If it is true that a man known or unknown to Mr. H. M Upham brought a box to the express office at Coffey ville and left it with him to be shipped to Winfield, as he says, and that it was this box, or the contents thereof, which exploded, then we find, after a careful consideration of the testimony, that there is an entire absence of evidence from which we are able to locate or identify the person who left the box at the express office, or, if the purpose was criminal, from which we are able to say what crime was intended, the motive thereof, or the purpose to be accomplished. “2d. We find further, that the explosion was not the result of any conspiracy instigated by the Republican State Central Committee, or in which any mem- ber of that party or any employe of the State was implicated, as charged in the resolutions. The proof is clear and convincing that the use or explosion of dynamite was no part or plan of the Republican State Central Committee for conducting its campaign; that it had nothing whatever to do with the ex- plosion at Coffey ville, and was in no wise responsible therefor; and that Henry Booth, Bion S. Hutchins, E. P. Greer, C. A. Henrie, and George W. Poorman were not in any way connected with the explosion, or accessory thereto. “3d. We further find that there is an entire absence of testimony showing or tending to show that the failure to investigate this alleged crime in the courts has been caused by the neglect or refusal of any public officer to per- form his sworn duties in reference to the matter, as charged in the resolu- tions. “4th. The findings already made show that the charge that you, having been advised of Mr. Henrie’s connection with the explosion, and as a reward therefor, secured for him the position which* he now holds as clerk in the Bureau of Labor, cannot be true; and we find that your action in recommend- ing or assenting to the appointment of Mr. Henrie was uninfluenced by any such consideration. “II. — Some Genebal Obsebvations. — (The figures in parentheses will refer REPUBLICAN REPORT . 103 to the pages of the record, where the testimony or proceedings may be found supporting the statements made.) “That the student of the future may understand, as the people of this day and generation understand, that feelings of personal ill-will and hatred, a de- sire for revenge on the part of the members of a secret, oath-bound political organization and a hope to make political capital, were the motives for urging and instituting this investigation; that the facts in reference to the' secret caucus report of the four Alliance members of the committee may be recorded and preserved, so that it may be understood and known for what it is — not as the honest, deliberate judgment of unprejudiced men, but simply as the final act in a drama, the cast and lines of which were laid down and well un- derstood before the play commenced — a brief outline is here given of the situation, past and present, so far as it is relevant to the subject-matter of this investigation. “The political campaign of 1888 was one of great public interest and im- portance. Besides the Republican and Democratic, there were the Union Labor, the United Labor, and other presidential or national tickets in the field; and while it seemed certain that Kansas would be carried by the Republican national ticket, the contest on the State, Congressional and local tickets in this State was spirited and vigorous. The Union Labor party, since merged into the Alliance or People’s Party, was an especially important factor in the fight, and it was believed that the local ticket supported by that party would be successful in many parts of the State; and members of that party were not wanting who professed to believe that their ticket would carry the State. At this time Henry and Leo Vincent were, and for a year or more had been, pub- lishing a weekly paper at Winfield, known as the American Nonconformist , politically supporting the Union Labor party and its candidates. The utter- ances of this paper, while in form denying it, were such as to convince intel- ligent and patriotic citizens that its editors, the Vincents, were in fact anarchists, and were in full sympathy with the red-flag anarchists of the Chi- cago stripe. They denounced the execution of the Haymarket anarchists as ‘ judicial murder.’ (431,433.) In the issue of their paper of September 22, 1887, appears an editorial under the heading of ‘Must have their Blood,’ which was in evidence, and from which the following is quoted: It may be of no avail to enter our protest at this late hour against this judicial murder, but we can at least show a contempt for the cowardly cringing of professed labor reformers at the feet of monopoly in their mad cry for blood. The monopolists are howling for blood; nothing else can satisfy. The people are becoming desperate, and an example must be made of those who have the nerve to protest against this hell-born system of legal robbery; and the protestors — the people — given to understand that they must calmly submit to be robbed, or be hanged if they resist. That is what it amounts to. “ ‘The monopolists (the modern slaveholders) are just that near-sighted as to fancy that the hanging of seven men is about to settle the question in favor of their supremacy, as they thought the hanging of that one man would settle the former agitation. “ ‘Another thing: How happens the date for the execution to fall on the day that the State militia is to be in the city? Is there anything suggestive about that? Would this have been tl^e case, had not the ‘ powers that be’ known that the desperate legal murder they were order- ing would call forth an outburst of popular wrath ? And are they such fools as to think that two or three companies of State dudes can quell an insurrection of the magnitude such a crime will call out? . “ ‘ To our mind, if Chicago wants to see bloodshed as she never saw it before, they have but to spring the trap to launch those seven men into eternity ; and if Judge Gary hopes to escape, it would be no indiscretion on his part to join his co-workers and brethren in crime, the Chicago boodlers, and take a vacation in Canada.’ ” [ Turn now to p. 593 of the record and finish the above article from which 104 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. J udge ( ? ) Kimball extracted a few sentences, which, taken alone, might be mis- construed. One sentence Mr. Kimball took good care not to quote is this: “The Nonconformist stands for law, but it stands for human rights first. Take the heel of oppression from the neck of labor, and you have no use for nine-tenths of the ‘enactments’ that disgrace this boasted land of the free.” — Ed.] * “The sentiments of the editors of this paper were so pronounced and well understood, that long before the Coffeyville explosion it was a common thing for the people to refer to them as “anarchists” or “dynamiters.” (130, 132, 431.) “During this same period, Mr. Ed. P. Greer was, and before that time had been, publishing a daily evening paper at Winfield, Republican in politics, known as the Courier. Because of the sentiments expressed by the Vincents in their paper, Mr. Greer had denounced them as anarchists, and as men dan- gerous to the welfare of the community. As a consequence whereof, the Vin- cents were not particularly friendly towards him; and a certain expose and the comments thereon in the Courier , which will be referred to more fully hereafter, caused the relations between the Vincents and their associates and Mr. Greer to become so strained that there were those of the latter’s friends who feared for his personal safety. (326, 327.) “At the State convention of the Union Labor party, held at Wichita in that year, it was noticed by members of that party that there was some secret organization working within the party, which absolutely controlled its move- ments and dictated its action, but to the deliberations of which none but the initiated were admitted. (Testimony of Henrie, 177; of Connor, 400, 401.) Rumors became rife of the existence of this organization in Cowley county, and that it was treasonable, revolutionary, and bound together with oaths, whereby its members forswore their allegiance to the laws, of their country in their obligation, under penalty of death, to obey the orders and preserve the secrets of the organization. This matter coming to the ears of prominent Republicans in that county, an effort was made to secure evidence of the ex- istence and character of the order. One George W. Poorman, a printer who had been in the employ of the Vincents, and who knew that the secret woi^k of this organization had been printed in their office (333), was employed and paid to secure a copy of it, and was successful in doing so. (329, et seq.) “On the 4th of October, 1888, the contents of this book, which contained the constitution, ritual, secret work, oath, etc., of fhe National Order of Videttes, were published in the Courier , together with charges that the society was secret, oath-bound, treasonable, and revolutionary in its character; that it was organized within the Union Labor party; that one of its objects was to con- trol the action of that party politically; that the Vincents were members of the organization, and that the secret work of the order was printed at their office. (74, 76.) This has been spoken of by many of the witnesses in their testimony as the first expose of the National Order of Videttes. There were many who feared the vengeance of the Videttes would be visited upon Mr. Poorman and Ed. Greer, or both, for the exposure of their order. Mr. Poor- man believed, and was advised, that it would be safer to go away, which he did at once. (97, 330, 333, 340.) “The Vincents, through their paper, in a public debate, and in conversation REPUBLICAN REPORT . 105 with members of their party who were not members of the order, denied that there was any such order in existence, and denounced the statements made in the Courier as campaign lies (74, 97, 120), and being believed by many members of their party, were thus enabled to materially diminish the effect that this expose would otherwise have had.” [What purpose Mr. Kimball can have in making imaginary quotations, or citing those that do not exist, is more than we can understand. Page 74 of the record contains nothing that refers even to a pretended denial. On page 97 is only the statement of Greer that ‘the Vincents denied the existence of the Order of Videttes.’ .Referring to the same thing (p. 120) in Greer’s ex- amination occurs the following: Q. In answer to Mr. Dawes, you said after the publication of the ritual, which occurred on the 4th of October, that the Vincents denied the existence of the order of the Videttes? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now then, was that denied by them orally or was it denied by some arti- cle published in their paper? A. Well, the most positive or specific denial of that occurred at a public meeting in W T infield, in which Prof. Vincent and Col. Henderson were discussing the issues of the day. The bare statement of Greer is taken as proof in the face of a positive de- nial, which Mr. Kimball conveniently forgets (?) to mention. C. Vincent was on the witness stand — p. 277. Q. Do you remember where you were, Mr. Vincent, upon the 6th and 8th days of October, 1888? A. I do. Q. Just state, if you please. A. In Winfield. Q. Reference has been made to a joint discussion between you and Mr. Henderson; state whether that discussion occurred upon the evenings of these days. A. It occurred on the evenings of the 6th and 8th. Q. Were you then in anywise connected or associated with an organiza- tion denominated the National Order of Videttes? A. I was. Q. Was there anything said by you with reference to the organization? A. Ye?, sir. Q. Did you then deny that you had any knowledge of the existence of an order known as Videttes? A. I did not. Q. What did you say with reference to it? A. I said I did not have any knowledge of the existence of any secret treasonable organization in the State of Kansas. With this evidence staring him in the face, this man, chairman on the part of the Senate, masquerading as Senator, in the place belonging to another man, Mr. Kimball, coolly assumes that Mr. Greer told the truth, and pursues his argument as serenely as if he were honest in what he wrote. — Ed.] “Mr. Greer at once set about getting additional evidence of the existence 106 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. of the order. Learning that the officers of the Republican State Central Committee had other important information bearing upon the case, he soon after went to Topeka, and in conjunction with Mr. Bion S. Hutchins and Mr. C. A. Henrie, assisted in preparing and putting into shape the final and con- clusive expose of the existence and purposes of this order. (95.) This expose was published in the Courier on the evening of October 18th, and in the Topeka Capital and other prominent Republican papers in and out of the State, by previous arrangements, on the 19th. (95, 522, 548.)” [The Senator’s citations are correct this time, and he might have added that the entire space of pages 179 to 199 was occupied in showing conclusively that the publication of October 18 and 19 was a cunningly arranged tissue of lies, containing enough of truth to give it currency among the excited popu- lace, whose passions were to be still further aroused by the inflammatory char- acter of the publications. — Ed.] “The explosion at Coffey ville happened on the 18th, the same day that the complete expose was published in the Courier. As it was reported that the box of dynamite was billed to Winfield, there was much excitement there; and the two topics, the expose and the explosion, were the talk of the town. Many persons arrived at a conclusion, which perhaps was only natural under the cir- cumstances, that the Yidettes, who had heretofore been dubbed the dyna- miters, were in fact responsible for the explosion; and that the dynamite was shipped to Winfield by some member of this organization, to be used either in wreaking vengeance upon those who had exposed their secrets, or to pre- vent the second or more complete exposure that was published on that day. “In this connection, it should be noticed that there was a combination at that time between the Union Labor party and the Democrats, on the local ticket in Cowley county, and that the Winfield Telegram , a Democratic paper published there, and the Nonconformist , were both supporting the same local ticket, the editors of the two papers being on intimate terms and in consulta- tion daily. “As a kind of offset to the public talk and charges that the Yidettes and Yincents were responsible for the explosion, Mr. J. W. Henthorn, local editor of the Telegram and correspondent of several other Democratic papers, con- ceived the idea that it would be a good political scheme to charge the ex- plosion at Coffeyville upon the Republicans, as a part of their plan to bolster up or give effect to the expose. The matter was talked over with the other editors of the Telegram, and with the Yincents, and the plan was approved. (409.)” [Correct again — in part. Now for the facts. Mr. Henthorn continued to edit the Telegram for a short time after it was purchased by the “ Independent Newspaper Union ” — H. & L. Yincent, managers. Sometime since he was discharged, for cause, although the public attention was never called to the matter. He then secured work from Ed. Greer, and in order to “hold his job,” he prostitutes what little manhood he had left, and goes upon the stand to swear he lied in 1888. Note a few choice selections : By Judge Webb (p. 412): Q. Are you in the habit of circulating rumors REPUBLICAN REPORT. 107 detrimental to the character and reputation of men throughout the State, or at different places, for the purpose of publicity, without any regard to their truthfulness? A. Not except in a campaign. Q. Well, are you then? A. Well, I have done it. Q. Do you want yourself understood as a common political liar ? A. No — not quite. Q. You have since that time been in the employ of the Vincents? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are now in the employ of Ed. Greer? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been at work for him? A. Almost eleven months. By Mr. Senn ( p. 413) : Q. You draw a line between making a statement for political purposes and any other statement? A. We have to. Q. Why do you have to? A. To keep even with the other fellows. Q. You felt as though you would be justified in making such a statement, implying as much as it did, without knowing the facts in the case? A. Yes, sir; I did. I was working on a Democratic paper. Now Mr. Kimball comes to the rescue of their liar as he flounders in distress, sweating blood under the castigating queries of attorneys and committee, and shows again that his own moral status is as low as Henthorn’s (p. 414):' By Senator Kimball: Q. As you understand it, Mr. Henthorn, the way political campaigns are conducted nowadays, it has come to be a common practice for the organs of one political party to distort the truth, and even to make statements that are not true, for the purpose of downing the other party in the campaign, has it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And because the editor of a party newspaper or an employe upon such paper resorts to these means during a campaign, you do not think he thereby forfeits his right to be believed when he testifies in court, under oath? A. I most assuredly do not.] But to resume the report: “And so it came to pass that on the next day after the explosion, and without a single fact to support the statement, special dispatches were sent out to the principal Democratic papers of the West, charging in effect that it was a part of the Republican plan to give effect to the Vidette expose to deposit the dynamite at Coffeyville, to be sent to Winfield and there se- creted, to be found in the possession of members of that organization, and thus be able to prove that they were in fact dynamiters as well as anarchists; and from that time until after the election the Democratic press in and out of the State teemed with so-called dispatches, editorials and clippings, in which the responsibility for this affair was charged upon the Republican party. The Vincents, as would be expected, approved of the plan, and their paper was not behind in the matter, there being this difference; however, that after the cam- paign was over the decent Democratic papers generally allowed the matter to drop. Not so, however, with the Vincents. It was the only good chance they had to get back at Mr. Greer for the punishment they had received at his hands, and they made the most of it. The exposure had broken the power of the order of Videttes and had much to do with the defeat of the Union Labor ticket in many localities in the State, and they and some other members of the order were bound to have satisaction. The charges were 108 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . kept up in the Nonconformist; and, by means of ready-prints furnished by that office, republished in other Union Labor papers in the State. Gradually becoming more bold, they charged in their paper in May, 1889* that E. P. Greer, C. A. Henrie, Governor Humphrey, Bion S. Hutchins and Henry Booth were the direct agents of the Coffey ville explosion; and this was followed in the same year by the publication of a so-called “History of the Coffeyville Dynamite Outrage,” which has been frequently referred to by counsel and the witnesses in this investigation as the “Red Book.” It is a compilation of various newspaper articles upon one side of the subject. This book has been heard from in various portions of the State, and seems to have had a wide circulation. From it Mrs. Lease, and numerous other Alliance speakers during the last campaign, seem to have taken their text or drawn their inspiration. With the way prepared as we have seen; with the Alliance — formerly Union Labor party — in control of the House, with a chance to put up a committee, a majority of which would be prejudiced against the Republican party in this and other matters, it was easy for the Vincents, who were on hand early in the session, to secure the passage in the House of the resolutions under which the committee was appointed. The Senate, being Republican, could have refused to concur in the resolutions; but a seeming unwillingness to join in the investigation would have been construed by many as an indication that the charges referred to were true; and so the resolutions were amended and passed, and the committee was appointed.” [See p. 93 of this volume, for the amendments referred to and the for- gery of Senator Kimball. His inuendoes carry their own antidote, and his splenetic rhetoric would be more in place in regulation Republican stump speech than in an official document. — Ed.] “The political predilections of the members of the committee have been referred to in another place. Of the eight members of the House who have been appointed, all were members of the Alliance party but one. No Demo- cratic member of the House was appointed. Of three members appointed from the Senate, the only Democratic member of that body was selected as one. While the theories which have been advanced to account for this ex- plosion have been numerous, the resolutions ignore all except those which reflect upon the Republican party or some official or employ^ for whom it is responsible. .Outside of and beyond the feelings of personal ill-will and mal- ice which lie behind the matter, and the hope and purpose of smirching the Republican party and making political capital, there was no more reason why the Legislature of this State should, at an expense of twelve or fifteen thousand dollars, investigate the explosion at Coffeyville, even if it was crimi- nal, than that it should investigate any other of the numerous crimes which have been committed in this State, the perpetrators of which are as yet un- discovered and unpunished. Whether these are sufficient and proper rea- sons and motives, we leave to the people of the State to judge. “The motives and purposes of the persons who worked up this investiga- tion have already been indicated, and are apparent. We have shown how their pertinacity and determination to accomplish their aims, coupled with the political prejudices that controlled one branch of the Legislature, resulted in bringing the great power of the State, through its Legislature, to bear, in REPUBLICAN REPORT. 109 the hope of finding some evidence tending to prove charges which the evi- dence shows were absolute inventions, gotten up as a good political scheme to down the Republican party. And it should also be noted that the evidence of Mr. Henthorn as to the origin of these charges (409) is absolutely uncontra- dicted by any testimony in the case.” [Except his own proclamation of his lying proclivities — which render it unnecessary to cumber the record with further evidence — his own admission, and the necessity to “hold his job” on the pay-roll of Ed. Greer, nullify whatever of value might have attached to his “evidence.” — Ed.] “The Vincents were present from the first to the last meeting of the com- mittee; they selected and hired the attorneys who conducted the Alliance side of the investigation, and were afterwards paid by the State.” [Correct, and Bion Hutchins selected the attorneys who defended the cause of the Republican party and their anarchist protege — C. A. Henrie, which attorneys were also paid by the State an equal sum with the others. — Ed.] “They named the witnesses whom they desired, and they were all brought before the committee, and if they and their “mic’saders” have not succeeded in downing those who accomplished their undoing, it is certainly not their fault. “Another matter indicating the motives, the animus behind this investi- gation, and the report which will be made by the four Alliance members of this committee, should not be overlooked. It was plainly evident after the close of the testimony, indeed it was ill concealed before, that these members of the committee intended, in so far as in their power, to throw the responsi- bility for this explosion upon the Republican party, as charged by the reso- lutions and the Vincents. “In this connection it should be remembered that this committee is a pub- lic tribunal with high and important functions, and it was properly directed, by a Senate amendment to the resolutions, to hold its sessions with open doors; that its report, sustaining or destroying the character and good name of this one or that one, is not only printed and distributed to the public, but goes into the public archives, to make a part of the official history of this State forever. Under these circumstances, the proper performance of official duty would seem to require that any findings made by a portion of the committee, which are to have a place in the public report, should be presented to and considered by the committee; and a fair opportunity given to show, if pos- sible, that the conclusions were erroneous and baseless. Especially would this seem to be the only proper course where individuals were to be inculpated. Their names, and the extent of the findings against them, should be laid be- fore the committee, and an opportunity afforded for a fair statement in reply as to each person and accusation. If the conclusions were honest deductions from the testimony, there could be no possible objection to this course. “These suggestions being self-evident, it seems proper to refer to what has in fact been the action of the Alliance members of the committee. Their caucuses and consultations have been held with closed and locked doors. No other member of the committee has been admitted. A secret report has been or is to be prepared. That it reflects upon the Republican party is a' fore- gone conclusion, but upon what person or persons is unknown. A request to 110 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. have this report laid before the committee, coupled with a statement of what the report of other members of the committee would contain, and an offer to submit a draft of it so far as prepared, was ignored and refused, and it was announced that the contents of the report would not be divulged until all other reports were completed. (Page 606.) This action seems to be in accord with the political methods of the party which was in control of the House at the last session of the Legislature, to gain admission to the sessions of which, the password and sign were more potent than a properly authenticated card of admission, in the hands of the uninitiated citizen. The unfairness of this action, both to the parties implicated, and to those members of the committee who believe that there is no evidence sufficient to warrant a finding against anyone, is manifest. True theories and correct conclusions must be con- sistent with all established facts. Where no opportunity is given to point out the error, to show the facts inconsistent therewith, it is easy to suggest a theory or reach a conclusion, and to support it by garbled extracts from the testimony in such a way as to make it seem plausible and like the truth.” [We h^ve already seen how much Senator Kimball has to prate of “garbled extracts,” and we shall see more before we are done. — Ed.] “The facts referred to, showing the origin of this star-chamber manifesto, should of themselves be a sufficient answer and vindication to anyone who, by the findings of this so-called report, is found or declared to be in any way connected with the Coffey ville explosion.” [No one will take Mr. Kimball’s word for it, but will read the report itself, and the evidence upon which it is based. — Ed.] “III. — Other Findings, with References to the Testimony Supporting Them. — 1st. We find that Mr. C. A. Henrie was not at Coffeyville on the 18th of October, 1888; that he was not the man who left the box containing the explosive with Mr. Upham, if in fact any such box was left with him; and that he had no connection whatever with the explosion. This finding is supported by such indubitable and conclusive proof that no unprejudiced court or jury would hesitate for a moment in agreeing to it.” [See Judge Webb’s review of this point later in this chapter. Also, same letter for remarks on the credibility of McCray, Capper, and Scott. — Ed.] “H. M. Upham testifies positively that C. A. Henrie was not the. man who delivered the box to him. He testified that the man who brought the box to the office stood in front of him, with the light of a large window shining directly in his face, so that he could not possibly be mistaken. That the man was heavier and older than Mr. Henrie, had black eyes, whereas Mr. Henrie’s were blue, and other peculiarities and marks about his face that Mr. Henrie did not have. (38, 39, 43.)” [But Mr. Kimball adroitly omits to quote Mr. Upham (pp. 596, 597): Q. Since you have testified, have you had any conversation with Mr. Henrie with reference to the description you gave of the individual who delivered to you the box of dynamite, or explosive substance, on the 18th day of October, 1888 ? A. Well, I do not remember any particular conversation that I had with him, except the one after the adjournment of the sitting of this com- REPUBLICAN REPORT. Ill mittee in the supreme court room. I think it was immediately after I had testified. He congratulated me on my serenity of mind under your cross ex- amination; and as my testimony regarding his eyes was a little mixed, I called his attention to it. He said, “The reason of that is, that when I am excited, my eyes seem to grow darker.” And that is about all I remember of that conversation. There were quite a number standing around; it was not a secret conversation at all. Q. Did he in that conversation say anything about the peculiar manner in which he batted his eyes when excited? A. Yes, sir; he said he winked his eyes, and they became a little darker when excited — seeming to help me out in the description of his eyes. Q. Who was present at the time you had the conversation? A. Mrs. Up- ham was standing beside me, my wife — quite a number were standing around, but I do not know who the others were. It will be noted that in the earlier days of the session, Mr. Upham be- lieved in the innocence of Henrie. His views changed during the investiga- tion, for he found Henrie to possess all the characteristics he at first failed to observe, even to the mark on his nose, which was quite noticeable when the light fell upon it at the proper angle to make it plain. This was common re- mark about the Senate chamber during the sittings there. In addition to the physical characteristics, Mr. Upham found that he possessed the debased moral nature necessary to the enactment of any political deviltry, and hear- ing all the evidence as he did, he changed front in his opinions, as honest men are bound sometimes to do. — Ed.] “Mr. D. 0. McCray testifies positively, that Mr. Henrie was in Topeka on the 18th of October; and is able to fix the day beyond the possibility of a doubt to an unprejudiced mind. He was at that time associate editor of the Topeka Capital. The expose of the Yidettes was published in that paper October 19th, and Mr. Henrie was in the office, once in the forenoon assist- ing in ‘making up’ the matter containing the expose, and in preparing a heading for the article; and again, to look over the proofs. (447, 453.) “In this connection, it should be noticed that the expose as it was pub- lished in the Capital , and other papers, was mostly written, copied, and put into shape, by Mr. Henrie, Mr. Greer assisting, and Mr, Hutchins exercising a supervision over it; Mr. Henrie being at the time in the employ of the Re- publican State Central Committee; the work being done in a room at the Windsor Hotel, at Topeka. That it was planned to have it appear, first in the Winfield Courier , an evening paper, and on the next day, in other Repub- lican papers in the State, and elsewhere. In order to accomplish this, the committee had procured the matter to be put in type, stereotyped, and when everything was ready, and a telegram agreed upon was sent to Mr. Greer, the editor of the Courier; he was to publish the matter in his paper, and the plates, or matrices, were to be at once sent out so that it could appear in the other papers on the next day. (Testimony of Greer, 95,666; Hutchins, 513, 522, 543.) 112 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. “It should further be noted that the plates that were sent out only in- cluded the body of the matter constituting the expose, the editors of the dif- ferent papers being left to furnish such display headings as they might deem proper. The heading in the Capital occupied. nearly a quarter of a column. ( See Capital , 98; testimony of McCray, 453, 460.) On the morning of October 18th, everything being ready, Mr. Hutchins sent to Mr. Greer the telegram agreed upon, ‘O. K. All busy here.’ (96, 522.) The expose was published in the Courier that evening, and in the Topeka Capital the next morning. (98, 473.) “Frank C. Scott, who was foreman of the Capital office, testifies positively that he saw Mr. C. A. Henrie in the editorial rooms of the Capital with Mr. McCray on the 18th of October. He is able to identify and fix the date from the fact that it was the day before the Vidette expose was published in the Capital. He says that he went to the office about half-past twelve o’clock and found the stereotyped plates of the Vidette expose on the ‘turtle’ in his room; that he knew nothing about the matter, and went to the editorial rooms to see Mr. McCray about it; that he found him and Mr. Henrie there in consultation in reference to it, and Mr. McCray said he wanted to write a heading for it. He swears that he knows that the paper containing the ex- pose was in fact published on the day it bears date, the 19th, the next day after he saw Mr. McCray and Mr. Henrie together in the editorial rooms in consultation in reference to the matter. (460-461.) “Attention is here called to a typographical error which appears in the first part of the testimony of this witness, where, in asking a question, coun- • sel is made to say Friday, October the 17th, instead of October the 19th. This error is also corrected in the errata. The error, however, is immaterial, as it is fully corrected by subsequent questions and the answers of this wit- ness thereto. “The testimony of this witness was regarded as so clear and conclusive upon this question as to the whereabouts of Mr. Henrie, that the able counsel for the Alliance refrained entirely from any cross-examination. (462.) “Arthur Capper, at that time local editor of the Capital , testifies clearly and positively that he saw Mr. Henrie twice on the 18th of October, at Topeka, the first time early in the afternoon, and the last time later in the evening, after the Overmyer meeting, which he reported, and which report is published in the Capital of the 19th, together with an item written by Mr. Henrie in reference to the same meeting. A further fact sworn to by this witness, and which precludes the possibility of any mistake by confusing this meeting with any other Overmyer meetings held during that campaign, is, that after this meeting was over Mr. Henrie telephoned Mr. Capper that the meeting had degenerated into a big drunk, and the latter asked him to write it up. That later in the evening, Mr. Henrie came to the Capital office, and in Mr. Capper’s presence wrote an item in regard to the drunk, which appears in the Capital of the 19th, with the report of the meeting referred to. (463.) “Henry Booth testifies positively that he saw Mr. Henrie in Topeka at the Republican committee rooms on the 18th of October, the day before the pub- lication of the expose by the Capital. He is able to further fix the date be- yond the possibility of a doubt by his recollection of the fact that he was about leaving Topeka to attend a Republican rally at Ottawa, which was held on the 19fch. He was giving directions to Mr. Hutchins, the secretary of the committee, as to what he should do while he was away when Mr. Henrie came REPUBLICAN REPORT. 113 into the room where they were talking. He attended the rally at Ottawa the next day, which was the 19fch, and there first heard of the explosion at Coffey- ville. (469.)” [Concerning the reliability of Henry Booth, please refer to Chapter IV of this volume.] “C. A. Henrie himself testifies positively that he was in Topeka on October 18th, and for several days before that time, engaged in preparing the Vidette expose; that he never was in Coffeyviile in his life. (173, 491.) His testimony agrees with Mr. McCray’s, as to assisting in preparing the heading for the expose on the 18th. (495.) He testifies that he was at the Overmyer meeting in Topeka on the evening of the 18th, and made a partial report of that meeting for Mr. Cummings, who was at that time business manager of the Daily Sunflower. (505.) ‘•The affidavits of John F. Cummings (448) and Mrs. Lucy Barlow (495) should also be mentioned. Mr. Cummings corroborates Mr. Henrie as to the report of the Overmyer meeting; and both affidavits show conclusively that Mr. Henrie was in Topeka on the 18th of October. Mr. Henrie explains how he came to procure these affidavits. Mr. Cummings was sick, and was going away. (504.) Mrs. Barlow, a married lady with a family, frequently moved from place to place. (502, 503.) The statements of witnesses in affida- vits, where no opportunity is given to cross-examine, is of so little weight that it is not ordinarily received in judicial proceedings. Especially should such evidence be rejected in this kind of an investigation, unless strongly corroborated by the testimony of witnesses who appear for examination. These affidavits, being corroborated by evidence which is of itself conclusive, should be considered. The persons making them are, so far as the testimony shows, respectable people. Their credibility is not in any way impeached, and the fact that their whereabouts is now unknown shows that it was a proper and prudent step to secure their affidavits.” [ Mr. Kimball again betrays his intense partisanship by “garbling” the record in quoting only such portions as suit his purpose. We now refer the reader to the testimony of A. J. R. Smith, which the honorable Senator for- got (?) to mention. (240, 241). Q. Do you know a man by the name of Cummings? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is his given name? A. J. F. Q. What relation, if any, did he have with the paper called the Sunflower , published, I believe, in the city of Topeka? A. He had no relation whatever with it. Q. Did he, on the 18 th day of October, have any connection or relation with that paper, either as editor, foreman, manager, or in any other sense? A. He might have been solicitor for advertising or job work. Q. W T as he general manager or editor at that time? A. No, sir. Q. Was he foreman of the office ? A. No, sir. Q. How long have you been acquainted with him? A. I have seen him off and on for about six months, maybe a year; I do not recall when I first met him or when I last met him. 114 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. Do you remember of having any conversation with him with reference to an affidavit that he made at the instance of Mr. C. A. Henrie? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was that? A. I can only state the time by saying that it was a few days after the affidavit had been given; it was before the affidavit was published. Q. Now, then, you may state to the committee what that conversation was. A. He said to me, “I have given Henrie an affidavit to help him out of his scrape,” and he said, “Can they do anything with me for it?” Q. What did you say to him? A. I said, Was not the affidavit true? Q. What was his response thereto ? A. He said “Of course not.” After study- ing a minute or so, I replied: I do not think they will ever trouble you about it; that is all the conversation that was had upon the subject. Q. Had you at that time seen the affidavit? A. No, sir. Q. Have you since seen a published copy of the affidavit? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state to the committee, from your conversation with Mr. Cum- mings and your examination of the affidavit, as to whether or not the con- tents thereof were true ? A. I had no conversation with Mr. Cummings upon the subject but what I have recited. Q. Were you familiar with, and did you know the paper called the Daily Sunflower? A. Yes, sir. Q. What relation did you have with that paper? A. I had no relation with the paper, other than a friendly relation with the parties interested in it. Q. I will ask you to state to the committee if you know what that paper is? (Handing witness a paper.) A. That is the Daily Sunflower. (Counsel offered and read in evidence the following local from the paper referred to:) “Hon. David Overmyer spoke at the Grand last night.” Q. What is the date of the paper to which your attention has been called? A. October 19, 1888. Q. Is there any published report of the speech of Hon. David Overmyer in that paper, as delivered by him on the 18th of October, 1888? A. No, sir. Q. Is there any mention of his speech in that paper? A. It simply says he made a speech. By Mr. Curtis: Q. There are several comments in the paper about Mr. Over- myer, are there not? A. There are three editorial comments upon Mr. Over- myer. “ Did Overmyer sign the petition for the mayor and council to discharge the police last sum- mer?” “ Is Dave the supposed champion of the people who by a special act of the Legislature took from the voters of iShawnee county the right to say whether or not they would have jails and jailer’s residence, and by that act had the commissioners directed to build the same? He is that, and we ask the people what kind of champion he is.” REPUBLICAN REPORT. 115 w- “When Dave Overmyer talks about little children working in New York, does he think the people do not know that Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill prohibiting the employment of chil- dren under thirteen years of age in the factories of New York ? ” “ Hon. David Overmyer spoke at the Grand last night.” Q. Is that the only report that appears in that paper of the speech delivered by Hon. David Overmyer? A. That is all the report of the speech, but I see some more reference to Mr. Overmyer. (Mr. Curtis said that he admitted that there was no report of the speech in the Sunflower of that date.) Mrs. Lucy Barlow was a close personal friend of Henrie’s wife, and the cir- cumstances under which her affidavit was secured demonstrates that he vas imposed upon and jjid not have time to fully consider the import of what West Fl ^ ih Street ' she signed, if indeed she understood it at all. She was living, at the time of securing the affidavit, in Kansas City, Missouri, and Henrie, accom- panied by his wife, called at her resi- dence on Independence avenue, but she was not at home; they called again later in the day, and taking Mrs. Barlow with them, they pro- ceeded to Kansas City, Kansas, where the affidavit was signed and certified. It has never yet become known why they passed scores of notaries in Kansas City, Missouri, to select this one in Kansas City, Kansas. The circumstances surrounding the securing of this affidavit were so peculiar as to warrant further investigation. Mrs. Barlow is the daughter of Mr. Ed- win French, and they lived together with C. A. Henrie and family, in the same “flat,” a diagram of which is here shown. During the excitement incident to the publication of the Capital article and the explosion at Coffeyville, Mr. French sat one day at the door marked a in the above diagram, which door was open. A stranger came up the stairs marked b and knocked at Henrie’s door, marked c — Mrs. H. responded to the knock and substantially the following conversation ensued: Stranger. — Is Mr. Henrie at home? Mrs. Henrie. — He is not. S. — Can you tell me where he is? Mrs. H. — I think he is in Kansas City. — = A ® M - . A fl A to 3 *3 £ © 2 CO to = ' C : Hall. - Henrie’s rooms. = e = to . • a g zz: to y QJ *3 a -a c3 ® w ; -*J s-c M S3 Vacant. = 116 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. S. — Can you give me his whereabouts or tell me where I can find him? Mrs. H. — I cannot. After some more questions by the stranger, who seemed very desirous of finding Henrie, he departed, and Mrs. Henrie being asked who the stranger was, replied substantially: “I don’t know who he is; there are so many men running here to know where Charlie is, and if I knew, I wouldn’t tell them; I ain’t going to give him away.” The impression upon the mind of Mr. French, who was an unwilling listener, was, that Mrs. Henrie had been charged to keep silent about her husband’s whereabouts and that she was fol- lowing instructions. Read now the affidavit of the father of Mrs. Barlow, a man who made this statement, with all these incidents burned into his mind bj^his close associa- tion with a man charged with a great crime. (178.) bTATE of Kansas, Linn County, ss. Edwin French, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, on his oath doth say that he is ac- quainted with one C. A. Henrie, of Topeka, Kansas, and has been acquainted with the said C. A. Henrie for the four years last past. To my personal knowledge the said C. A. Henrie left his home in Topeka, Kansas, one or two days before the announcement in the daily papers of the explosion in Coffeyville. Kansas, of a dynamite bomb consigned to Winfield, Kansas, on the date of October 18th, 1883, and to my knowledge he did not return to his home until after the above announcement of the said explosion in the daily papers. At the time of his return, I was standing in the hall-way of Fifth street entrance of No. 119£ Fifth street, in the city of Topeka, Kansas, at the hour of between ten and eleven p.m. When he entered he had in his hand a traveling bag or “ gripsack,” as though he was just returned from a journey. I said to him in substance as follows: “This is a nice time of night for you to come slipping in home,” to which remark he made no reply, but passed on upstairs. To the best of my knowledge and belief he remained at home all the following day. Shortly afterward, I obtaiued a copy of the daily paper, the Kansas City Times, charging the responsibility for the said explosion of dyna- mite on the said C. A. Henrie. I took this paper to him and called his attention to this charge. I left the paper with him. During the second day after his aforesaid arrival, the request came - to me through my daughter, Mrs. Lucy Barlow, for us not to mention his being at home. At various times during the succeeding few days he jokingly referred to bombs and dynamite. After tae election, as my memory serves me, a suit of clothes was sent to the house for him in his absence, and at first he appeared not to know where the goods came from, but subsequently said to me: “I am not satisfied with a suit of clothes, but I will have the position promised me in the Labor Bureau or I will raise hell.” It was common talk between his family and mine for some weeks, that he was to have a position in the State Labor Bureau. The family of said C. A. Henrie moved into the said 119| [west] Fifth street, Topeka, Kansas, about the middle of Sep- tember, 1888, and during the absence of said Henrie in New York, whither he said he was going to attend a United Labor, or Henry George convention ; the wife of C. A. Henrie stated to me and to my daughter aforesaid, that he had received the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars with which to attend said convention. I lived in the same house with C. A. Henrie, No. 119£ [west] Fifth street, from about the middle of September till about December 15, 1888, about which time I moved to Monroe street, Topeka, and ttience in a short time to Kansas City, Mis- souri. I have lived in Mound City, Kansas, since June, 1889, and am a blacksmith by trade, a life-long Republican in politics, and served four years in the United States navy. Edwin French. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2d day of September, 1889. John C. Cannon, Notary Public. ( Term expires May 3, 1893.) Mr. Kimball conveniently forgets (?) to mention this evidence which com- pletely destroys the credibility of the Barlow affidavit, yet the Senator per- sists in quoting that and endeavoring to hide this, only to throw discredit upon it later in the report. Not contented to simply conceal, so far as possi- ble, those portions of testimony (French and Smith) which completely over- REPUBLICAN REPORT. 117 throw the testimony of Cummings and Mrs. Barlow, he goes farther, and asserts in his report that “ their credibility is not in any way impeached.*’ Can blind partisanship and conscienceless “garbling” go farther? — Ed.] “The testimony of Judge Reed should be mentioned. He produced the registration books of the ward in which Mr. Henrie lived, and which showed that he was in Topeka and registered as a voter on the morning of October 19th. (482.) The testimony of several witnesses also show's that he was in Topeka on the 17th, attending to the final work in reference to the publica- tion of the expose, and for several days prior to that time. “As against this mass of testimony, all of which, excepting probably the two affidavits, will be recognized as legal and competent evidence, what is there in the way of proof — it should be remembered that charges and insinu- ations, no matter how often repeated, prove nothing — that would be received in any court showing that Mr. Henrie was not in Topeka, or that he was in Coffey ville, on October 18th, 1888? If this positive and uncontradicted tes- timony as to his whereabouts on that day was all stricken out, there would still be nothing from which any unprejudiced tribunal could find that he was at Coffeyville on that day.” [Judge Reed’s testimony is entirely worthy of credence. He is a gentle- man who appeared to good advantage on the stand. His testimony concern- ing Henrie is straightfdrward and honest, but not touching a vital point, is of no value in the controversy on either side. He showed the registration books to prove that Henrie was in Topeka on the nineteenth of October, which in no way disproves his presence in Coffeyville on the 18th, for he could leave that city in the evening and be in Topeka the following day. — Ed.] “It has been suggested by certain members of this committee that, with an extra suit of clothes and a false beard, Mr. Upham’s description of the man might be made to fit Mr. Henrie. Mr. Upham describes the man as having a beard of three or four weeks’ growth. It is well known that false beards of this kind are not usually made, and if made and worn would at once betray the fact. Mr. Upham makes no statement to indicate that the man wore a false beard, and he points out other physical differences between Mr. Henrie and the man in question which cannot be counterfeited, and testifies positively that Mr. Henrie is not the man. But it has been more than suspected by mem- bers of this committee that Mr. Upham was not telling the whole truth about this matter. And this has been construed, by those whose prejudices would lead them in that direction, to mean that he was endeavoring to shield Henrie or the Republican party. Mr. Upham knows that the truth of his story of the strange man leaving the box with him is not unquestioned. His first cross- examination by Republican counsel at the beginning of the investigation showed that. Why, then, should he shield Mr. Henrie? Would it not be more natural for a man so situated to fasten the responsibility upon somebody else who was already charged with it, and thus clear himself from suspicion? Why should he endeavor to protect the person or political party, the representa- tives of which were plainly showing their belief that he, himself, and not any other man, was responsible for the explosion? Members of the committee who are forced to go to Mr. Upham’s testimony from which to find that Mr. Henrie is guilty are indeed hard pressed for evidence to support their views. * — 7 118 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . “Now as to the testimony of I. M. Waldrop, who was station agent at Yaleda, about twelve miles east of Coffey ville, at that time. He says that just after it was getting dark in the evening after he heard of the explosion, he saw two strangers at the depot, and that Mr. Henrie would fill the bill as to one of them as near as he could recollect; would not say positively, but rather believed that he was one of the men he saw there in 1888. (571, 572.) This part of Mr. Waldrop’s testimony should be considered in the light of the admission that he makes, that before he was called to the stand he was taken in charge by a so-called detective by the name of Highleyman, who has several times appeared upon scene's during this investigation as a witness and otherwise, and by him conducted to the door of the room where the committee was in session and told that Mr. Henrie, or the man suspected of being at Yaleda, was in the room. (572.) What other hints he received from the detective, we are not advised, but as showing the feelings and prejudice of the latter in the matter, we refer to his testimony where he swears he does not believe a man could have been convicted of this crime if he would con- fess his guilt. ( 580. See also 242, 245.) Mr. Waldrop further testified that the man at the depot who resembled Mr. Henrie was larger or fleshier every way than Mr. Henrie, with a fuller face, and that both of the men there had beards of one or two weeks’ growth. (574.) The contradictions and inaccu- racies of his statements should be noted. He says first, that he presumes he heard of the explosion on the same evening that it happened, but is not positive (571); again, says he is positive he heard of it the same evening (573); and again, says he is pretty positive, but could not say, it has been so long since the explosion. He testified that he had quite a conversation with the man he thought Mr. Henrie resembled, but says nothing about his having any peculiar accent. He told Mr. Clifford in 1888, that he talked politics with this man; that he had foreign accent, and was evidently not of American birth. (369.) Mr. Henrie has no foreign accent, and is of American birth. If he was there, fleeing from the scene of a crime, and was trying to put on a foreign accent as a disguise, he would not be talking politics; he would have kept himself out of the way, and had as little to say as possible. The descrip- tion which Mr. Waldrop gave to Sheriff Connor (603) differs in many other respects from that which he now gives. (574.) “ The testimony of Mr. N. M. Clifford, a deputy sheriff, in reference to the description of the two men given him by Mr. Waldrop, and which was taken down at the time (369), show his statement in regard to the foreign accent of the person now said to resemble Mr. Henrie, and other discrepancies between the description given then and now, which tend materially to weaken Mr. Waldrop’s testimony. And there is nothing in any of Mr. Clifford’s testi- mony that in any way tends to show that Mr. Henrie was there at that time. Mr. Clifford says he heard of two strangers who had stopped at the Southern Hotel, in Coffey ville, on October 18th, registered as Chart Harvey and James Koken, of Cheney, Kansas. He secured a description from the landlord, and hearing that they had gone east, went to Yaleda and saw Mr. Waldrop, and got from him a description of the two men that he had seen. (369.) While there were some variations in the descriptions of the two men, as given by the land- lord and by Waldrop, yet he thought they were the same persons.” [Mr. Kimball recognizes the peculiar strength of Waldrop’s testimony ow- ing to his frankness of manner, and hence his studied effort to throw a cloud REPUBLICAN REPORT. 119 over its credibility. Waldrop was told that a party was in the Senate cham ber who was suspected of being at Yaleda October 18, in the evening. He went inside the rear door and stood for about ten minutes scanning the people present and failed to find a man who resembled either of those whom he saw at Yaleda. He started across the room to a seat, and in passing his quick eye caught sight of one who had been hidden from his view by the portly form of Judge Webb. At once he said, “That is the man,” and this man was C. A. Henrie. When Mr. Waldrop was called to the stand Henrie had urgent busi- ness in the cloak room, and business was suspended until the Sergeant-at- Arms could discover his whereabouts and bring him in to be identified, as he was in the following language (572): Q. After having observed Mr. Henrie here, and instituting such comparisons in your mind as you are able to do, what is your best judgment as to whether he is one of the men whom you saw on the 18th of October, at Yaleda? A. Well, I rather believe he is. The caution of Waldrop showed his entire lack of prejudice and a desire to wrong no one, nor to defeat the ends of justice by taking refuge in the “for- getfulness” so conveniently useful to several of the Republican witnesses. — Ed.] “ The testimony of Mrs. Cougher should also be mentioned. It is a pity that the readers of this report cannot see this woman as she appeared to the com- mittee — a hardened, abandoned woman, divorced from her first husband, sep- arated from. her last, with whom she had lived in adultery, as she admitted, for three months before she was married to him; the venom of her unbridled tongue seemed directed against everyone. So far as her testimony bears upon this question, she said, in substance, that her husband told her — we pre- sume this was before they had separated, though the testimony does not show — that Mr. Henrie was the man who delivered the box of dynamite at Coffey- ville, to be deposited at the Courier office, and finally to injure the Yincent brothers; and that Mr. Hutchins and Mr. Greer’s names were mentioned in connection with the matter. (211, 212.) This testimony was admitted over ob- jections which ought to have been sustained. It was hearsay of the worst kind. Was Mr. Cougher stating what he knew, or what he had heard, or had read in the Nonconformist or some other paper, or where did he get his in- formation? For many good reasons the law provides expressly that conver- sations between husband and wife shall not be received in evidence. (General Statutes of 1889, sec. 4418.) So this is no evidence at all. Beyond this, she testified that she heard her husband, Mr. Cougher, say, laughingly, to Mr. Henrie, “Where did you stop while at Coffeyville? ” In reply to which, she says Mr. Henrie stated the name of the hotel, but she did not remember it. (212.) Mr. Cougher, although unfriendly to the present administration, be- cause he did not get the appointment as Labor Commissioner (357), posi- tively denied the statements made by this woman, as also did Mr. Henrie. (493, 494.)” [ Mr. Kimball here outdoes himself in vituperation, for the purpose of breaking down the credibility of this witness, and if shame were a possible 120 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. thing to an “age of consent” Senator, (see p. 472, Senate Journal 1889, where is recorded Mr. Kimball’s vote for the bill to reduce the “age of consent” to 12 years,) surely his cheek would color when he looks at the above extract from his report. Suppose we admit she was twice unfortunate in marital af- fairs. Does that destroy her credibility? When she married Mr. Cougher, it seems he had not been divorced from his former wife the necessary time re- quired by law, and the ceremony was repeated — this is the “adultery” re- ferred to by the Senator. (See Mrs. Cougher’s testimony later on.) Mr. Kimball rejects the woman's evidence, yet accepts with a hearty in- dorsement the man's , when both are morally and legally in the same position. We protest against this unfairness — beg pardon, we forgot for this moment that the Senator was incapable of fairness. Her language and bearing before the committee was lady like, and she had no harsh language for anyone, and her tongue was not “directed against” anyone. She admitted, when expressly asked by Republican counsel, that she was not living with her husband, and when farther pushed admitted that the feeling existing between them “was not the most pleasant*” but she said not one word against him or against anyone else, except as the truth must be told in answer to questions put by counsel. She exhibited no feeling of ill-will toward anyone, and the above exhibition of vituperation from the Senator’s pen can only be explained on the theory that she told the truth, and her credibility must be questioned, even if it should ruin the future prospects of a woman having four children, three of them dependent upon her own efforts for a living. Because Mr. Kimball has seen fit to wantonly attack this witness, we append her testimony in full, and call attention to that portion regarding Governor Humphrey’s alleged visit to the Labor Bureau. (Questions 21, 22, 23, 24.) And again, in the cross-examina- tion, when the Governor was pointed out to her, notice how promptly and clearly she states that he was not the man who had been represented to her as being the Governor. Her manner on the witness stand convinced all un- prejudiced persons present of the truth of her evidence, which is here intro- duced. First, however, concerning the denials. No one ever pretends to believe or pay any attention to what Henrie may admit or deny, but from p. 357 we clip Mr. Cougher’s alleged “denial.” Q. I will ask you to state if you ever at any time told your wife, Anna Cougher, that you knew of the explosion at Coffey ville, and that the object was to deposit a box in the office of the Courier at Winfield? A. No, sir; not to my recollection. Q. Did you ever tell your wife that C. A. Henrie was the man who delivered the box at Coffeyville? A. Not that I recollect of. Q. Did Mr. Henrie ever say to you in the presence of your wife, while talk- REPUBLICAN REPORT. 121 ing about the charges contained in the red book, that he was at Coffeyville, and give you the name of the hotel at which he stopped? A. Not to my recollection. It is noticeable that he does not “positively deny ” the statements, but takes refuge in general forgetfulness. Mrs. J. G. Cougheb, being duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, upon the subject-matter under investigation, testified as follows: (pp. 209 to 216 ) By Mr. Henderson: Q. You may state your name to the committee. A. Mrs. J. G. Cougher. Q. Are you acquainted with J. G. Cougher, who was upon the witness stand yesterday? A. I am. Q. What relation do you bear to him? A. I am his wife. Q. Do you know what business Mr. Cougher was engaged in in 1889? A. He was Assistant Labor Commissioner of the State of Kansas. Q. During any part of that year were you engaged in work in the office in which he was employed? A. Yes, sir. Q. What duties did you perform there? A. Such as he instructed me to, such as filling out reports, looking them over and sorting tljem out. Q. There as a sub-clerk? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much of the time during the year that I have mentioned were you at work in the office? A. I was not at work, but was there the greater part of the time, according to his wishes. Q. Were you at that time acquainted with one Mr. McCray? A. No, sir; not acquainted. Q. Did you know him when you met him? A. I knew him, for I had been told that he was Mr. McCray. Q. By whom were you informed? A. Mr. Cougher introduced me to him. Q. Did you learn from any source what duties he at that time performed? A. He told me he was in the Governor’s office. Q. Are you acquainted with one C. A. Henrie? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see him in the room now? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that the gentleman sitting there the other side of Mr. Curtis? (Coun- sel points to Mr. Henrie.) A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Henrie? A. A little over two years; since November or December, two years ago. Q. During that period of time, I will ask you to state to the committee if you resided in the same house with him? A. I had a room in his house. Q. Who occupied that room? A. I did, myself. Q. In company with whom? A. No one, except at times. 122 POPtTLISf HANDBOOK. Q. Was your husband with you at that time? A. I had no husband at that time. Q. Are you acquainted with Governor Humphrey? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know him when you see him? A. I think I would. Q. Do you remember of having seen him in the office in which you worked in 1889? A. At one time I was told that that was Governor Humphrey. Q. By whom were you so informed? A. Mr. Henrie. Q. I will ask you now to state to the committee if you had any conversa- tion with Mr. McCray in the office of the Commissioner of Labor or the La- bor Commissioner with reference to any affidavit that was then required of Mr. Henrie. A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state to the committee when that was. A. I cannot say what time it was; it was in the middle of the summer — perhaps August — when he came to the office. Mr. Henrie was out. I was the only one in the office, as my husband was sick and at home. He asked me where Mr. Henrie was. I told him he had just stepped out and that he would be in presently. He waited a little while, and then went somewhere out of the room. Mr. Henrie did not come, and he came back again in a few moments. Mr. Henrie came, and Mr. McCray handed him these affidavits, telling him he would have to sign it, and told him: “This is the only way out of it.” These are the identical words. Q. Did you have any occasion to examine the affidavits, or either of them, that at that time was delivered to Mr. Henrie? A. I did; one of them. Q. Were these affidavits left in the office in the custody of any person in the absence of Mr. Henrie? A. No, sir; they were left with Mr. Henrie. Q. Which affidavit was it that you read? A. The one I read was pertaining — was wanting him to make a denial of the charges that were made against him in this dynamite explosion. Q. Who do you mean when you refer to “him?” A. Mr. Henrie. Q. I will ask you to examine the affidavit herein contained, (calling wit- ness’s attention to exhibit 6, at the bottom of column three of page one,) and state to this committee whether or not that is a copy of the affidavit which you read, or the one to which you refer? A. That is just as near as I can remember it. [Here follows copy of affidavit.] Q. Do you remember how many affidavits were presented to Mr. Henrie by Mr. McCray at the time of the conversation to which we have already re- ferred? A. Two. Q. Do you remember what time of day it was that Mr. McCray and Mr. Henrie had the conversation in relation to the affidavit about which you have REPUBLICAN PEP OPT. 128 just testified? A. I do not know just what time it was; in the forenoon, near noon. Q. Did you observe what Mr. Henrie did with the affidavits at that time? A. He put them in his pocket. Q. Did you see them afterward? A. One of them. Q. When, with reference to the conversation between himself and Mr. Mc- Cray? A. After that. He just handed them to my husband when he goi able to come to the office to read, and, laughing, Mr. Cougher said to him, “Can you swear to that?” Henrie laughed back and said, “I can swear to anything.” Q. When did that conversation take place? A. Soon after the affidavits were brought in there, in the middle of the summer. Q. You do not remember how many days? A. No, sir; it was soon after- ward. Q. Do you remember the fact of the publication and circulation of a book called “The Red Book?” A. Yes, sir. Q. Published and circulated by the Vincent brothers? A. Yes, sir; I re- member of seeing it in the office when it was handed around to read. Q. Do you remember of hearing any conversation between your husband and Mr. Henrie in reference to the contents of that book? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that conversation, or those conversations, in substance? A. Well, it was only in regard to what the book was written about, exposing Mr. Henrie and claiming he was the guilty man. Q. What^did Mr. Henrie say in answer to the charges contained in the red book against himself? A. Well, he said he did not give (with an oath); that he got a job, anyway. Q. What job did he refer to? A. I supposed he referred to the clerkship in the Labor Bureau Department. Q. Was it a common thing for your husband and Mr. Henrie to converse with reference to the contents of this book? A. It was an every-day subject. Q. In that connection was there anything said about Mrs. Lucy Barlow? A. No, sir; that was prior to that. Q. Well, you my state what was said by Mr. Henrie with reference to Mrs. Lucy Barlow. A. The only recollection I have of anything was in Mr. Hen- rie’s house, and we were speaking about her having the room that I had, and he saying that he could get an affidavit from her. Q. Do you remember what he said as to the character or kind of affidavit he could obtain from her? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember whether or not he said in that conversation, or any conversation you had with him, or heard between himself and any other per- son, that she would swear to anything that he desired? A. No, sir. 124 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Henrie say to any person in your presence, or to yourself, the object of the dynamite that exploded in Coffeyville? A. I never heard Mr. Henrie say anything about that. Q. Did you ever have any conversations with any persons with reference to the object? A. I did with Mr. Cougher. Q. When was that with reference to the publication of the book that had been designated as “ The Red Book?” A. Sometime afterwards. Q. What was that conversation? Mr. Curtis objected to the reception of this testimony, on the ground that it calls for a conversation between husband and wife, and is clearly incompe- tent; mere hearsay evidence, and too remote to be of any value to the com- mittee. Senator Kimball said he thought the testimony oijght to be excluded. The objection was overruled by the committee, and the witness was directed to answer. A. He said the object was to deposit it in the Courier office at Winfield, Kansas, and finally injure the Vincent brothers. Q. Did he in that conversation state to you anything that Mr. Henrie had said to him in reference to that matter? A. No, sir. Q. In that or any other conversation, was there anything said about the person who delivered the box of dynamite to the express agent at Coffeyville? A. Between Mr. Cougher and myself ? Yes, sir. Q. You may state to the committee what that was. A. He said, “Mr. Hen- rie was the man;” these words. m Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Henrie, or did you hear any conversation between your husband and Mr. Henrie, in which Mr. Henrie said anything in reference to the fact of his visit to Winfield, Kansas, at any time during the year 1888? A. Nothing, only that he admitted that he had been there. Q. What did he say in connection with the fact of his visit to Winfield? A. A. Nothing more than that he had been there. Q. Was there anything said about what he handed the boys? A. He said he had a drink with the boys. Q. Did you hear Mr. Henrie make that remark yourself? A. I did. Q. Did you hear Mr. Henrie say anything about where he stopped when in Coffeyville at the time of the delivery of the box of dynamite there to the ex- press agent? A. Nothing more than that Mr. Cougher laughed and said to Mr. Henrie, “Where did you stop while at Coffeyville?” Mr. Henrie stated the name of the hotel, but I do not remember what it- was. Q. State to the committee if you heard any conversation between your REPUBLICAN REPORT. 125 y4 husband and Mr. Henrie, immediately before the adjournment of the Legisla- ture of this State two years ago. A. Yes, sir. Q. And if that conversation referred to his appointment, you may state what was said. A. Mr. Oougher came down and I was in the room; Mr. Cougher said to Mr. Henrie, “I do not believe you will get a job.” Mr. Hen- rie said, “I will; they dare not refuse me now.” Q. In any conversation between Mr. Henrie and your husband, were there names of other persons mentioned in connection with this Coffeyville dyna- mite explosion? A. Yes, sir; two others. Q. You may state the names of these persons. A. One was Mr. Hutchins, and one was Mr. Greer. Q. Do you remember what was said, and in what connection these names were mentioned? A. Nothing more than that they would be of no assistance to him in getting his position. Q. Was there anything said, in that connection, as to the parties named being compelled to aid him? A. No, sir. Q. Was there anything said in that conversation with reference to the Re- publican State Central Committee? A. Never heard it talked about. Q. Generally, and in connection with this matter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you call to mind any special statements of facts that were made by Mr. Henrie to your husband in your presence in relation to the Republican State Central Committee? A. No, sir. Q. Do you state to the committee that you have not even heard it spoken of? A. Yes, sir. Q. Prior to the delivery to Mr. Henrie of the affidavits about which you have already testified, I will ask you to state to the committee if Governor Humphrey came in the office where you were? A. At one time. Q. When was that in reference to the time of the execution of the affida- vits in question? A. It was before the execution, as they had not been signed yet; he said they would have to be signed. Q. You may state to the committee what the Governor said when he came into the room. A. Well, he just said, “Sign them;” that is all I heard. By Mr. Cubtts: Q. Where are you living now? A. Salida, Colorado. Q. When did you come to this city? A. Last Monday. Q. Where have you been stopping since? A. At number 711 Quincy street, at my mother’s. Q. Do you know Mr. Vincent, sitting by you? A. Monday night I was in- troduced to him in a lawyer’s office. Q. Are you living with your husband now? A. No, sir. Q. How long since you lived with your husband? A. It has been little over^ a year — about thirteen months. 12B Populist hauu-Poou, Q. Were you living with him when you occupied rooms in the house that Mr. Henrie lived in? A. No, sir. Q. Where were you living at the time you worked or assisted in the office? A. On Buchanan street. Q. What are the feelings that exist now between yourself and your hus- band? A. They are not the most pleasant in the world. Q. What is the feeling existing between yourself and Mr. Henrie? A. All right; I have no personal feeling against him. Q. You say that Mr. Henrie said or admitted that ‘he had been to Coffey- ville? A. He admitted it to my husband in my presence. Q. When was it that he spoke about having been down to Winfield? A. It was just after this book was published, and the statement was going around through the papers, and was daily talk. Q. Was that at the same time he admitted to have been down to Coffey ville? A. No, sir; there might have been two or three days’ difference. Q. You say that your husband asked him where he stopped in Coffey ville, in a joking manner? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that most of the talk that was had there in the office about this red book was in a joking manner? A. Not all of it. Q. Well, was it not all with reference to the connection that Mr. Henrie had in the matter? A. It did not seem to worry him. Q. Was it not like other matters published about a person reflecting upon their character, and they did not like to say anything about it only in a jok- ing manner? A. He did not like to hurt his feelings any more than was nec- essary. Q. How did Mr. Henrie reply to your husband, in reference to the hotel he stopped at? A. Candidly he told where he stopped, but I do not remember. Q. Was it at the Bobbitt House? A. I would not undertake to say. Q. Does that sound like it? A. I do not know. Q. Is that the time he claimed he drank with the boys? A. No, sir; at Winfield. Q. Were these affidavits signed at the time Mr. McCray had them in the office? A. Certainly not. Q. How many days.after were they signed, if you know? A. I do not know. Q. Was the one signed at the time you read it over? A. I read it once be- fore it was signed, and once afterward. Q. It was not hid in the office from you, was it? A. I never looked for it; I do not know whether it was or not. Q. In whose handwriting was that affidavit? A. I do not know. 4 Q. Was it in Mr. Henrie’s handwriting? A. I do not know. I would not RePuRLICAN REPORT. 12 ? know his handwriting; although I have seen it a great deal in the office, I would not know it if I should see it now. Q. Did Mr. McCray bring it there already prepared? A. All except the signing, to the best of my knowledge. Q. Isn’t it a fact that he came in there and talked about it, and that Mr. Henrie, after he had talked with him, prepared the affidavit, and then Mr. McCray brought them in? A. I do not know how that was fixed. Q. They were not signed at the time they brought them in to Mr. Henrie? A. No, sir. Q. Was the one you read written out on the type-writer or in long-hand? A. It was just a blank affidavit and prepared — Q. What do you mean — were the dates in? A. Just the blank places for his name and date. Q. The dates above and below? A. All of them. Q. Was there any printed matter upon the affidavit? A. Yes, sir. Q. What part was printed? A. It was a blank affidavit; that is, all the printing that was on it, and the rest was filled in writing. Q. Was the printed matter on it a letter-head? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was no part of the affidavit printed? A. I think not. Q. What was the letter-head? A. It was not a letter- head; it was a blank affidavit. Q. I understood you to say it was a letter-head? A. It was not a letter- head, no, sir; it was a blank affidavit. Q. What kind of paper was it written on, if you remember? A. It was copied on paper something like letter-head; it was on broad, flat paper. m Q. Not on legal-cap? A. No, sir; on broad, flat paper. Q. Do you remember the printed matter that was on it? A. No, sir. Q. You are sure there was some printed matter about the affidavit, are you? A. Very few words. Q. Did Mr. Sterne come over to the office and swear Mr. Henrie to it? A. No, sir. Q. He was not sworn to it in the office? A. No, sir. Q. How many times was the Governor in the office to see him? A. Only one time, to my knowledge. Q. Is that the gentleman you called the Governor (pointing to McCray)? A. No, sir. Q. Who do you say tha‘t gentleman is? A. That is Mr. McCray. Q. How many times was Mr. McCray in the office to see Mr. Henrie? A. Only one time when he made his business known to me. Q. Was the Governor in the office at any time to see Mr. Henrie? A. That gentleman never was (pointing to the Governor). 128 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. That gentleman is Governor Humphrey, and you say he was never in there to see Mr. Henrie? A. No, sir. Q. You say now that Mr. McCray was never in to see Mr. Henrie but once about this matter? A. Not to my knowledge. He was in twice the same day; he went out and came back. Q. You say your husband told you? A. No, sir. Q. The gentleman that Mr. Henrie told you was Governor Humphrey was not him? A. Not this man (pointing to the Governor). Q. How long were you in the office helping your husband? A. I did a great deal of the work there the greater part of the summer of 1889. Q. Were you then married to your husband at that time? A. No, sir. Q. Did you marry him afterward? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you marry him,, Mrs. Cougher? A. I do not remember. Q. Near as you can? *A. It was the 6th day of October, 1889. Q. How long did you live with him? A. Until the 15th of January or Feb- ruary, 1890. Q, Then you only lived with him about three months? A. We were mar- ried, if I have to state it all, and it was not legal, and we were married over again. Q. Did you live together as husband and wife after this first marriage? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why was not your marriage legal? A. Because the right time had not expired after he had a divorce from his first wife. Q. The six months had not expired? A. No, sir. # Q. What was it Mr. McCray said about the affidavit? A. He says, “Mr. Henrie, you will have to sign these; it is the only way out of it for us.” Q. This, you say, is the affidavit you read? A. Yes, sir; as near as I can remember. Q. He did not tell him he would have to sign both affidavits? Was it not both to which he referred when he said he would have to sign them? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there anything talked over about his being able to get Mr. Codding to sign the affidavit? A. No, sir; not that I remember. Q. What was said about the other affidavit? A. Nothing. Q. Did you see what purported to be a second affidavit? A. No, sir; only Mr. Henrie said there were two. Q. When did he tell you there were two affidavits? A. He said it the next morning, to Mr. Cougher; he did not tell me. Q. Was there a good deal of talking back and forth, after the red book was published, by the parties in the office? A. Yes, sir. REPUBLICAN REPORT . 129 Q. Did he say anything about the Vidette expose when you were there? A. I heard it talked of. Q. You heard him say, did you not, that he was in the city of Topeka on the 18th day of October, 1888? A. No, sir. Q. You heard him say he wrote the expose that was published? A. No, sir; 0 I did not charge my mind with it, I simply heard it talked of. Q. Did you ever hear him tell anybody where he was on the 18th day of Oc- tober, 1888? A. I do not remember anything about dates. Q. Did he say which of the boys helped him drink up the whisky in Win- field? A. No, sir. Q. Did he say anything about visiting the Vincent brothers in Winfield? A. No, sir. Q. Was Mr. Cougher your first husband? A. No, sir. Q. How many times had you been married before you married him? A. Once. Q. Who was present when you had the conversation with your husband and he told you what was to be done with this box? A. Mrs. and Mr. Hoag, from Newton, were at our house. Q. Were they there when the conversation took place? A. Yes, sir; they were right at the table. Q. Who was there when Henrie stated to your husband the name of the hotel he had stopped at at Coffeyville? A. No one but just us three. Q. Mr. Henrie, yourself and husband? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was there when Mr. McCray brought in the affidavits? A. I was there all alone when he first came down, and Mr. Henrie came in as third party. Q. Anyone else? A. No one; no, sir. Q. Who was present when your husband told Mr. Henrie he did not believe he was going to get a job, and Mr. Henrie said they would have to give him a job? A. Just us three. Q. Mr. Henrie, yourself and husband? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was anybody else present during any other conversation between your husband and yourself and Mr. Henrie, except those two from Newton? A. At one time Mr. Whitley was. Q. When was that? A. It was in the office one day after this book came out, and the subject was up. Q. Well, what was said about it then? A. About what? Q. About the book, or about Mr. Henrie? A. They were discussing the subject. Q. Do you remember what was said? A. Nothing in particular. 130 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. Who was by when Mr. Henrie said he would swear to anything? A. No one except Mr. Henrie, Mr. Cougher, and myself. By Mr. Hendebson: Q. I will ask you to state to the committee if you ever heard any conversation between Mr. Henrie and your husband, or whether there was any conversation between yourself and husband about dynamite and its explosive powers, other than you have already stated? A. No, sir. Q. You may now state to the committee how many children you have. A. Four. Q. What are their ages? A. One of them is 19, one will be 17 in May, one 12, and the other 10 in July. Q. Where are they now? A*. They are all here except one. Q. Which ones, designating them by age, are now here? A. The ones that are 19, 12, and 10. Q. Are any of them here in the room? A. Yes, sir; two of them. (Having her children stand up.) Q. Where is the other ? A. In Colorado. Q. What is he doing? A. Learning the jeweler’s trade. Q. You state to the committee that the person pointed out to you as Gov- rnor Humphrey was not the person who called at the office of Commissioner of Labor; now you may state what description was given of Governor Hum- phrey to you by Henrie, at the time you were informed that the person pointed out was Governor Humphrey. A. He did not give any description; I asked Mr. Henrie, when the gentleman went out, who he was, and he said he was Governor Humphrey. Q. Describe that gentleman to the committee. A. He was a large man, and had a mustache, and not as old a man as Governor Humphrey; that is about all that I noticed. Q. Are you acquainted with William Higgins, Secretary of State? A. No, sir. The witness was here excused. The above is all of Mrs. Cougher’s evidence, except a few days later (278), when Mr. Kimball recalled her, and attempted to show that she had “ padded” her bill for expenses in attendance before the committee. In this he signally failed, and his abusive language toward her in his report proves what was sus- pected at the time — that she was recalled for the purpose of trying to dis- credit her testimony, by finding something crooked in her actions. A case must be lame indeed that is compelled to stoop to such methods in an effort to carry a point. — Ed.] But to resume: “The affidavit purporting to have been made by one J. W. French (178), written and secured by Mr. C. Vincent, is not evidence at all. It was admitted REPUBLICAN REPORT . 131 at a time when two of the Senate members of the committee were not pres- ent, and even the Alliance chairman of the committee felt called upon to enter his protest against it. (367.) This affidavit states that Mr. Henrie was absent, and did not return home until about 10 or 11 o’clock p.m., of the day after the announcement of the explosion in the daily papers. As the explo- sion happened about half-past 4 o’clock p.m. of the 18th, it is plain that the meaning of the language used in the affidavit is; that he did not return home before late in the evening of the 19th. This is expressly contradicted by Judge Reed’s records, which show that Mr. Henrie registered in Topeka as a voter, on the 19th. (482.) Mr. J. W. French, if he made this affidavit at all, is further contradicted by his daughter — so said to be in his affidavit — who swears that Mr. Henrie was in Topeka on the 18th, 19th, and until the 23d of October (495), by all of the witnesses who testified as to Mr. Henrie’s where- abouts at that time. Other matters are stated in this affidavit, seemingly for the purpose of downing Mr. Henrie, but they are contradicted by other wit- nesses. The most that could be claimed for French’s affidavit would be, to allow it to offset the affidavit of his daughter, and even this would be allowing too much, as Mrs. Barlow is corroborated by half a dozen witnesses, while the French affidavit stands alone.” [ The first sentence above shows that Mr. Kimball seeks to throw a suspicion over the genuineness of this affidavit. He also says that Chairman Carey pro- tested against its admission, and refers to page 367 of the record in proof. Page 367 contains a portion of Mr. Clifford’s evidence, and the affidavit in question is not mentioned there at all. The affidavit appears on page 178, at top of which occurs the following record — “Mr. Carey (chairman) said he would be in favor of allowing the affidavit to be received in evidence.” Three affidavits of absent persons were presented — Edwin French (178), Lucy H. Barlow (495), and John F. Cummings (448) — the last two by the Re- publicans, the former by the People. That of Cummings is a confessed false- hood. (See Smith’s evidence (240); also this volume, p. 113.) That of Mrs. Barlow was secured under very suspicious circumstances. (See this volume, p. 115; also Judge Webb’s letter, p. 171.) That of Mr. French has never been called in question, except by the implied insinuation of the Senator. The apparent conflict between it and Judge Reed’s evidence is easily accounted for, by the fact that just before election, during the last days of registration, the clerk’s office is open till late at night, to accommodate those who cannot appear in business hours. Nothing shows at what hour Henrie registered, and it is not at all inconsistent with surrounding circumstances to suppose, that on his return from Coffey ville he registered and took a lunch before go- ing to his home, west of Kansas avenue, where the French affidavit says he arrived about 10 or 11 o’clock. The Senator also says that this affidavit is contradicted by Mrs. Barlow’s. On the contrary, this affidavit contradicts that of Mrs. Barlow, her’s having been made and published first. Mr. French nat- 132 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. urally hesitated about denying the truthfulness of his own daughter’s tes- timony; but after mature deliberation, and several days’ consideration, he decided that she was mistaken or imposed upon, (the results being the same in either case,) and only in the interest of the public welfare did he make known the facts as stated in the affidavit. There were present with him at the time as witnesses, in Dr. Campbell’s office, at Mound City, Kansas, Dr. Campbell, John C. Cannon (notary), Geo. H. Townsley, editor of Torch of Liberty, and C. Vincent, of Winfield. The affidavit was written at his dicta- tion, and read to him a second time ( he not having his spectacles with him) before he signed it in the presence of the above witnesses. On page 600 of the record is found testimony that an unsuccessful effort had been made to find Mr. Frenoh, that he might appear personally before the committee. No record appears that the Republicans made any effort to secure the attendance of either Mrs. Barlow or J. F. Cummings. — Ed.] “We have stated the substance of all the testimony bearing upon the ques- tion of Mr. Henrie’s whereabouts on the 18th day of October, 1888, and, we ask, where is there any evidence showing, or tending to show, that he was in Coffey ville, or was not in Topeka, on that day? If all the evidence showing that he was in Topeka on that day was stricken out, there would not then be any legal evidence from which any unprejudiced court or tribunal could find that he was in Coffeyville on that day. “Mr. Henrie was an employe of the Republican State Central Committee during a considerable portion of the campaign of 1888, getting up the expose and performing other services. Proof that he was the man who left the box at Coffeyville is the only possible foundation upon which the Alliance mem- bers can base their findings that the Republican party, or other Republicans who have been named, were in any way connected with or accessory to the crime. Failing to prove that, their whole fabric of baseless conclusions, in- ferences and insinuations falls of its own weight. “2d. We have already found, generally, that Mr. C. A. Henrie was not in any way implicated in the Coffeyville explosion and had no connection with it, and that his appointment to a clerkship in the Bureau of Labor was not given him as a reward for any connection or supposed connection which he had therewith, or to prevent him from telling what, if anything, he knew about it. In view of the extraordinary circumstances under which this re- port is prepared, and which will be more fully referred to hereafter, it has been thought best to answer from the testimony this question: Why did the Governor recommend or assent to the employment of Mr. Henrie as a clerk in that bureau? “Matters have occurred which indicate to us that there are members of this committee who will refuse to see the plain and natural answer to this ques- tion, and will seek to account for his appointment upon some theory consist- ent only with the suspicions and prejudices which they entertain. To us the answer is plain, natural, fully shown by the evidence, and is simply this: He was employed as a clerk there because of his fitness for the place, because he was recommended by Mr. Bion S. Hutchins, who had occupied a prominent position in the organization of the Republican party during the campaign REPUBLICAN REPORT. 133 (529, 530), and others (520), and in recognition of services which he had per- formed for the Republican party. “It should be remembered, in the first place, that the position is not one of great importance; it is simply a clerkship in one of the departments of the State, at $800 per year. Mr. Henrie had been the editor and publisher of a newspaper devoted to the interests of the wage-earners; he had made a special study of the various phases of the work of the bureau in which he sought a position; he had filled a similar position as a State officer for a labor organization (a collector of statistics for the Knights of Labor State Assembly); he had actively favored the establishment of the Bureau of Labor, had been looked upon as an efficient and valuable man in that department, and had been mentioned as such in the various reports of the commissioner. This is shown by Mr. Betton’s letter to Greer, published in the Winfield Courier , of September 9th, 1889, and by other evidence. The copy of the paper referred to is the same in which certain other correspondence intro- duced in evidence is found. (57.) At the time Mr. Henrie was appointed, he was a member and officer of the Knights of Labor, both local and State bodies; the Typographical Union, and the American Federation of Labor. (588, 589.) The fact that in the year 1889, without charges, a trial, or a chance to defend himself, he was expelled from the Knights of Labor, for alleged non-payment of dues, and complicity in the Coffeyville affair, should not count against him. It is quite likely that this action was the result of the baseless charges con- stantly made, and reiterated in the Nonconformist and other papers. “Mr. Henrie was recommended for employment by such men as the late Governor John A. Martin, Hon. P. I. Bonebrake, formerly chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, Major J. K. Hudson, editor of the To- peka Capital , Mayor D. C. Metsker, of Topeka, and other prominent Repub- licans. (520.) The services which he had rendered the Republican party were considered valuable (520, etseq .); and, his paper not having proved a financial success, it was not only natural, but proper that he should be given a position in a department, the duties of which he was best fitted to perform. “An attempt was made to prove that Mr. Henrie was an anarchist, and cer- tain testimony was introduced for that purpose. It was shown that Mr. Henrie participated in a public meeting addressed by the anarchist Parsons, when he was in Topeka, and was otherwise associated with him. ( Testimony of J. W. Whitley, 179; and C. S. Whitted, 182.) It seems from this testimony that at that time, in the year 1885 (179, 183), Parsons was at Topeka organizing a branch of the International Working People’s Association. Mr. Henrie, being an active man in nearly all the movements in the interest, or supposed to be in the interests, of the laboring classes, assisted in this organization, and was, as a consequence, associated with Parsons. Mr. Whitted testified that at a private meeting held at Mr. Whitley’s house, he (Whitted) or some one whom he does not remember, asked Mr. Parsons to tell them how to make dynamite, and that the latter did so, and that it was suggested that he, being a gas-fitter, could make the bombs. ( 191.) He says that Mr. Henrie was present at that meeting; but Mr. Whitley, another witness called for the same purpose, and who was present at this same gathering, gives the names of those present at the time the conversation was upon the subject of dynamite, and says Mr. Henrie was not there. (181.) And the latter denies being present at any meeting where that subject was talked about. Certain articles in relation to the exe- cution of the Chicago anarchists, published in Mr. Henrie’s paper, the Labor —8 134 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Chieftain , were also introduced in evidence for the purpose of showing his sentiments and tendencies. (183.) The articles referred to are mostly special dispatches, giving the full text of Governor Oglesby’s decision, and an account of the execution of the condemned anarchists. Attention is called to the cool, temperate tone of these articles, as compared with the articles before quoted from the Non- Conformist.” [The Senator should have said “garbled” instead of “quoted.” Compare quotation with p. 593 of the record. — Ed.] “Some of the members of this committee are inclined to attach some im- portance to the language which Leland J. Webb testified that the Governor used in a conversation in which he was asked to prepare some affidavits for Henrie and others in regard to this matter. The credibility of this witness was seriously impaired by his action, shown by other testimony, in attemp- ting to trade his testimony, or rather the withholding of his testimony, for a promise that a certain appointment should be made, and by the feeling of animosity which he evidently entertained at the time he was testifying, and which was but poorly concealed by a pretense of candor and fairness. He ad- mitted that he had unpleasant feelings towards the Governor, as well as to- wards Mr. Henrie. He wanted another man appointed to the position given to Mr. Henrie. He was mad about this and other matters. (287.) Mr. Henrie had given him, Webb, a “roasting” in his paper, and for that and other rea- sons he did not like him. (288.) That Mr. Webb was a party to this attempt to trade upon* his testimony, is shown by the testimony of Judge Reed (478- 482), and of Mr. Evans. (484.) He kept out of the way and made a pretense of sickness (479), and said he would, if necessary, take a train and go away, (484), until he found that the appointment could not be secured in that way, and then he was swift to appear and testify. So anxious, indeed, was he after he found that the Governor would make no trade with him, that he said he ‘had rather lose $500 than to fail to testify in the case.’ (Judge Reed’s testi- mony, 491.) He then appeared as a witness and endeavored, no doubt, to carry out his promise to ‘make it hot for the Governor.’ (484.) “Testimony as to what was said in a given conversation is always uncertain. Two witnesses will hardly ever tell it alike. The change or omission of a word frequently changes the meaning of a sentence. Omitting or forgetting a part may change the tenor and meaning of the entire conversation. Taking all these matters into consideration, with the evident desire on the part of this witness to carry out, so far as he was able, the high and sounding phrase of his manifesto, as to what he would do if the Governor did not make matters satisfactory to him, and it is plain that his testimony affords no basis for any finding or conclusion against the innocence or good motives of anyone.” [In this effort to explain why Henrie was appointed, Mr. Kimball displays to excellent advantage all his fertility of imagination and ability to “garble” the record. It is stated that he had rendered “important services to the Re- publican party.” (520.) It is also admitted that he published a paper op- posed to that party. (183.) These two things are inconsistent upon any other theory than that he was a spy in the ranks of labor and secretly work- ing for the Republicans, and his reward proves this theory. REPUBLICAN REPORT. 135 Following is a copy of the resolutions expelling him from the Knights of Labor: “ Resolved , That it is the sense of the Kansas State Assembly of the Order of Knights of La- bor, in regular annual session assembled, in the city of Leavenworth, on Tuesday, August 6, 1889, that a former member of this order, by name and residence C. A. Henrie, of Topeka, Kan- sas, has forfeited every right and title to membership to this order. “First: By his sentiment and methods for more than a year last past, as charged, without contradiction by members of the order, and as widely and notoriously published in the current literature of the country. “Second: By the non-resentment and non-contradiction of the oft-repeated and long and widely-published charge that he was criminally connected with a murderous explosion of dy- namite at Coffeyville, Kansas, in the month of October, 1888. “Third : By his utter neglect to meet his financial obligations to the order, or to keep his promises respecting such obligations, since January 1, 1888, a period of over nineteen months. Therefore, be it “ Resolved , That the said C. A. Henrie is not rightfully or legally a member of this order, and has not been so considered by Knights who know him best for many months past. (See also p. 164, this volume, for a review of Henrie’s characteristics.) The “attempt” was not only “made” to prove Henrie an anarchist, but it was successfully attempted by the testimony of Whitley and Whitted, as well as by the fact that it was one of the reasons given for his expulsion from the Knights of Labor. Pages 588 and 589 are referred to to show that Henrie belonged to the Knights of Labor, the Typographical Union, and American Federation of Labor. These pages contain the record of his expulsion from the Knights of Labor, but no reference occurs there to either of the other organ- izations named. The attempt to discredit the evidence of L. J. Webb will fail of the accomplishment of its purpose. His alleged willingness to place himself beyond the reach of a subpena, provided Governor Humphrey would make a certain appointment, is not commended nor defended in any way; but we may observe that there is a serious doubt that he ever expressed such a determination, because the appointment he is alleged to have desired was not sought for nor wished for by the alleged intended recipient of the office. Observe again the “garbling” of Senator Kimball in the use of quotation marks around the words above — “make it hot for the Governor.” (484.) By reference to 484, we find the following record: Q. Didn’t he say he would make it hot for the Governor? A. He may have said something like that. Q. Well, what is your best recollection about that? A. Well, I think he said he would make it hot for him; not perhaps quite in that language, but that in substance. Mr. Geo. H. Evans was on the stand for the purpose of breaking the strength of Webb’s evidence, by trying to show a feeling of resentment on his part toward the Governor. The attorney (Dawes) put words in the mouth of this willing witness, which, being assented to, are next quoted by Senator Kimball as the words of another party; and yet he charges others with “garbling” the evidence in a report not yet made public. (617; also, p. 110, this volume.) 136 POPULIST BAND-BOOK. Was this because he knew he must “garble” to support his own case, that he was so ready to assume that others would also distort the facts? — Ed.] “3d. The charge is recited in the resolutions, that this alleged crime, the ex- plosion, has not been investigated in the courts, by reason of the refusal of certain officers to perform their sworn duties; and this charge we have found to be untrue. “It may be proper to state some of the reasons which impel us to this con- clusion, and to refer to the evidence bearing upon the question. So far as this charge has been referred to by anyone in this investigation, it seems to have been directed at Mr. Samuel C. Elliott and Mr. O. P. Ergenbright, county attorneys of Montgomery county; the former at the time of the explosion and until in January following, and the latter succeeding him in that office. In ordinary cases, where the prosecution of a criminal fails, the county has the costs and expenses to pay. The Legislature appropriated $12,000 to pay the expenses of this investigation, which does not include the cost of printing the testimony, etc. The witnesses brought before this committee were' only allowed five cents per mile, whereas in criminal cases they are allowed twice that. A trial of the same question in the courts of Montgomery county would cost a large sum of money. The county attorney who would not, under the circumstances, investigate the matter, ascertain what the evidence was, so as to be reasonably sure of a conviction before allowing a prosecution to be brought, would be unworthy to hold the office. It is as much the duty of a county attorney to protect -the tax-payers of the county from the costs and expense of improvident or ill-founded prosecutions, as it is to prosecute those cases where the proper evidence of guilt is presented to him. Now what does the evidence bearing upon the question show? It seems that I. D. Highley- man, the so-called detective, and 0. [H.] Vincent went to Mr. Elliott, and after- wards to his successor, Mr. Ergenbright, and asked to have George W. Poorman and C. A. Henrie arrested and prosecuted. To shorten this review of the tes- timony, we shall refer to the county attorney without specifying whether it was Mr. Elliott or Mr. Ergenbright who filled the office at the time. Mr. Highleyman says that the county attorney wanted to know what evidence they had of the guilt of these parties, and he and Mr. V incent told him (243, 245) ; but when asked to tell what the evidence was, says that it was the evidence of Wm. Drugan and George W. Poorman. (245.) And when pressed on cross- examination to tell just what was said to the county attorney about the evi- dence, he says in substance that he told the county attorney that he knew Mr. Poorman and had had some correspondence with a man at his home (Bellaire, Ohio), and that this man had written him that a man named Henrie was get- ting his mail there through Poorman’s wife, and if Poorman and Henrie were arrested, the latter would squeal and tell all he knew about it. (249.) This would indeed be strong proof upon which to institute proceedings, that would in the end cost thousands of dollars; and it appears, too, that Mr. Highley- man was working for himself. He wanted to be employed to go to Ohio and bring Poorman back at the rate of ten cents a mile and expenses going and returning. (See testimony of Elliott, 49.) Mr. Henrie was here in Kansas at that time, his whereabouts being well known; and Mr. Poorman has since come here voluntarily, and has told all he knows about the matter. (328.) The testimony of Mr. Highleyman, the letters he received from Drugan (253), and the testimony of Drugan’s associate, McCormack, brought here from Ohio REPUBLICAN REPORT. 137 as a witness at the instance of the Vincents, and who knew absolutely nothing about the matter except some rumors and hearsay statements, show what folly it would be for a county attorney to institute a prosecution based upon state- ments of these “tin horn” (282) detectives. The testimony of Mr. Henry Vin- cent, as to what occurred at these several interviews with the county attorney, is in harmony with that of Mr. Highleyman. (266.) So far as his testimony shows, he referred to no other evidence on which to base a prosecution than that named by Mr. Highleyman. We have purposely referred only to that part of the testimony offered for the purpose of showing that these county attorneys have been derelict in their duty. That testimony is of itself suffi- cient to vindicate them. There seems to be good grounds for the opinion expressed by Mr. Elliott, that under our statute — unless there was evidence to show that the explosive was delivered with intent to harm some person — no prosecution could be maintained, even if the person who delivered it was known. The testimony of both Mr. Elliott (48) and Mr. Ergenbright (53) should be read in this connection. “To sum up this whole matter, each of these county attorneys was expected to institute a prosecution that would have cost Montgomery county thousands of dollars, upon the unverified statements of a man in Ohio that he had heard that George W. Poorman’s wife had been getting mail for Mr. Henrie, and that he believed that if Poorman was arrested he would squeal. And because they declined to institute a prosecution on such evidence they are to be pub- licly charged, and investigated by the Legislature for refusing to perform their duties. The wisdom of the Legislature in changing the law exempting a county from liability for costs, except in those cases where the county at- torney approves of the prosecution, is apparent.” [The strained effort to justify non-action on the part of the county attor- neys may pass for what it is worth, but the public will remember that much more circumstancial evidence existed against the Republican committees than existed against the Cronin conspirators in Chicago at the time of their arrest; but the masterly inactivity of all Republican officials allowed this case to go by default^ and more, the Legislature of 1889 passed two laws, the effect of which was to impede the prosecution of this case. (See Senate Jour. 1889, pp. 471, 865, “An act to Abolish Grand Juries,” introduced eighth day of the session, by Senator Schilling; also, chapter 128, Session Laws 1889, bill intro- duced by J. B. Zeigler, of Montgomery county.) It is conceded that the presence of McCormack did not aid the prosecution, but that could not be ascertained in advance. Correspondence with Drugan indicated that some valuable information might be obtained by securing their presence. Drugan was sick, and the prosecution failed to establish what was aimed at by summoning these parties. We may add here, by way of variety, that this is the only exception. On every other point, the prosecution satis- fied honest people, committee and visitors of the invulnerability of the posi- tions assumed. — Ed.] “4th. We find that it is not true that Volney A. Beard ever overheard a conversation between E. P. Greer and Sol. Burkhalter in substance like that 138 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. stated by him in his testimony (126, 130); or that he ever heard any conver- sation between them which in any way referred to the shipment or delivery of any package — dangerous or otherwise. “As to whether Mr. Beard was honestly mistaken — whether he had at some time overheard some fragments of a conversation between those men as to the coming expose, to which a suspicious nature, which usually accompanies a low order of intellect, had added things never said, and a meaning never intended — or whether this witness committed willful perjury, we leave for those who read the testimony to determine for themselves. Mr. Beard is a small man, with but little room for brains in his head, and his manner upon the stand was not such as to impress one with his candor and truthfulness. He kept a stand where lunch, lemonade, etc., were sold in Winfield, and there went by the name of “Peanuts,” or “Peanut Jack.” (299.) His stand was next door to Hendricks & Wilson’s hardware store. He says the conversation occurred about 11 or 12 o’clock at night; that they, Greer and Burkhalter, were sitting outside of his store, the former on a wheelbarrow and the latter on a box, and he was inside waiting on some customers; that there was a wall between them; that he was hard of hearing, and they talked very low (129), and that he could not hear all they said. (127.) In one part of his examination he was fairly asked to state the name of the person he first told about this conversation, and in reply he said he told Geo. Applegate first and a Mr. Wilkinson about a year afterward. (127.) Subsequently he was recalled and asked the same question, and he then swore that Jim Connor, the sheriff, was the first person he told about it (139); and when asked his reasons for this contradiction in his testimony, did not say it was a mistake, or that he had forgotten, but with a cunning leer, which those who saw him will remember, said that he told them they were trying to draw him out, etc. (140.) Who he first told about this alleged conversation is unimportant, but whether this witness deliberately perjured himself to keep from being drawn out is an important consideration. The unprejudiced person who heard this testimony would be impressed with the fact that the witness knew he was not swearing to the truth when he said that George Applegate was the first person he told about it. “There was an attempt made to support this witness by calling Messrs. Ap- plegate and Wilkinson to testify to the fact that Mr. Beard did tell them of the conversation; but such testimony is worse than hearsay. One does not have to be a lawyer to know that a witness cannot add to the weight of his testimony by telling his story to others, and then having them swear to the fact that he did tell them; and that such testimony would not be received in any court. “Testimony showing contradictory statements is properly received for the purpose of impeaching or discrediting a witness. The testimony of Mr. Con- nor should therefore be considered as bearing upon the credibility of Mr. Beard’s story. Mr. Connor testified that when Mr. Beard told the story to him he said that he heard Mr. Greer say, ‘Didn’t we shoot it into them?’ to which Mr. Burkhalter replied, ‘Yes, we did!’ whereupon Mr. Greer said, ‘You wait awhile, and you will see a worse bomb than that fired into them.’ Mr. Connor was at that time a member of the Union Labor party, and the sheriff of that county. The story was told to him by Mr. Beard, as a basis for offi- cial action on his part. He says he did investigate the matter, and became convinced that the language referred to the expose of the Yidettes, and had po reference to the explosion at Coffeyville. (391.) The attempt that was REPUBLICAN REPORT. 139 made to corroborate Mr. Beard’s testimony was an entire failure. J. W. Car- ter, one of the witnesses brought before the committee for that purpose, tes- tified that he was a constitutional loafer, and had frequently seen and sat in a wheelbarrow in front of the adjoining hardware store. (577.) J. W. Curf- man’s testimony was to the same effect. (578.) And E. B. Emory testified that he saw Mr. Greer in at Mr. Beard’s place eating a lunch one night about the 9th, 10th or 11th of October. (579.) Proof that there was a wheelbarrow there, and that Mr. Greer once ate a lunch at Mr. Beard’s place, is no corrob- oration of the latter’s testimony as to the conversation. Thus it will be seen that Mr. Beard's story not only stands alone and uncorroborated, but with its credibility, to say the least, very seriously impaired by his contradictory statements. “On the other hand, Mr. Greer (428, 429) and Mr. Burkhalter (295) both positively deny that any such conversation ever took place; and there is nothing in the testimony before this committee which in any way impairs the credit which should be given to their statements. The general findings made by us, exonerating Mr. Greer from any and all complicity in the Cof- feyville explosion, as well as the special finding as to this conversation with Mr. Beard, are based upon all the evidence before the committee, as well as upon that to which special reference has been made.” [The testimony of Mr. Beard is quite voluminous, and would occupy about fifteen pages of this volume, hence we omit nearly all of it; though we wish as many as can do so would secure the record and read it all. It fell on the Republicans as unexpectedly and suddenly as thunder from a clear sky. Mr. Beard is of a non-combative nature, and when he first heard the following con- versation between Greer and Burkhalter (126), he kept still for some days. Q. Tell all you heard. A. Well, about 11 o’clock, or a few minutes after, Sol. Burkhalter came there and stopped another man talking with Mr. Greer, and Mr. Burkhalter said: “Ed., I hear you are onto them?” He says, “Yes, you bet I am.” He says, “Ed., my God, that is awfully dangerous.” He said, “No, sir; not at all.” “Well,” he says, “how are you going to fix it?” And he said, “I am going to have an officer there when the package is delivered.” Q. What else was said, if you remember? A. Well, I cannot say all that Mr. Greer said; it was very low and I did not hear it all. Burkhalter said in re- gard to the dangerous part of it, that there were a lot of women and girls there, and he would hate to see them hurt. Q. A lot of women where, did he say? A. I do not know. Some office, I think. When he first heard this, he did not pay very much attention to it, but when a few days later the explosion occurred at Coffeyville, he naturally con- nected the two together. He told Sheriff Connor, who, for some unexplained reason, told him to keep still about it. He did so, until overhearing a caustic remark by J. A. Cooper (chairman Republican county committee), addressed to Geo. Applegate, calling the Nonconformist a “d — d dynamite sheet,” he waited till Cooper had gone, and then related to Applegate the circumstances 140 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. of the above conversation. This was in the winter of 1888-9. During the next summer, under similar circumstances, he told the story to W. F. Wilkinson, in each case requesting them not to say anything about it. (In order to understand fully the reason of this request, it is necessary to feel and see something of the power once possessed by Ed. Greer to persecute the object of his displeasure, even to the destroying of his commercial standing and driving him from business.) Mr. Beard did not want any trouble, and so re- quested his personal friends not to publish the matter. His telling them has this important bearing on this case, however, that it effectually disposes of the insinuation of perjury cast upon him by the Senator. The attorneys badgered him mercilessly, but could not break his testimony in any respect, but, in the opinion of the majority, this cross-examination only made his evidence stronger. (682; also this volume, p. 147.) The charge is far-fetched that Carter was a “constitutional loafer,” the only basis being his testimony that he was janitor for several different societies that held their sessions in an adjacent hall, and that during these sessions he sometimes waited below about Beard’s lunch counter and adjoining hardware store. (578.) Nothing in the evidence warrants any such insinuation as that about Curfman. He was employed by Beard as a clerk or assistant in his place of business. The evidence of Dr. Emory corroborates entirely that portion of Beard’s testimony which relates to the presence of Greer at his restaurant on the night in question, and concerning which Greer sought to establish an alibi. It is true Greer denied being there, or that any such conversation was held, and tried to prove his presence elsewhere, and failed. Mr. Burkhalter was quickly so badly tangled in a maze of contradictions that he was the butt of jokes and ridicule during the remainder of the session. If Mr. Kimball can extract comfort from such evidence (?) he is welcome to it. — Ed.] “The testimony of Thomas Clover, Ben. Clover, Dr. Musgrove, L. G. Fry- barger, and W. H. Finney, is relied upon by some of the members of this committee as tending to prove that an explosion was planned in connection with the expose of the Yidettes, and that Mr. Greer was a party thereto. This testimony was merely hearsay. The witnesses themselves admit that it was based on what they heard Dr. Rude say, and the latter testified that he knew nothing about the matter, was not in Kansas when the explosion occurred, and knew nothing about it except what he read in the papers. (415, et seg.)” [ Mr. Rude testified as indicated above, but inasmuch as this testimony di- rectly contradicts his conversation with neighbors and friends when he had no motive to impel him to falsify, it is of but little value to the defense, and most persons would prefer to accept the voluntary conversations when the motive for deception was wanting. — Ed.] “5th. Who is responsible for the Coffey ville explosion? Was it the result REPUBLICAN REPORT. 141 of design or accident? Was the box, package, or substance which exploded in fact delivered to Mr. H. M. Upham to be shipped to Winfield? “It is not incumbent upon those who have been publicly charged with con- nection with this affair to prove who is guilty; it is enough that they are shown to be innocent of any connection therewith. Ordinarily, a man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven; but in cases where offenses are charged to have been committed in connection with political matters, many people are inclined to reverse the rule and require the accused to prove his innocence. The evidence showing those who have been publicly charged with this outrage to be innocent, the question remains, and is of some public interest: Who is the person responsible for the Coffey ville explosion? “Mr. H. M. Upham is the man who knows as much, perhaps more, about this matter than anyone else. If his story is true, if he has told the whole truth, P. Jason and L. or J. Louden are yet to be discovered. If he has mis- led us in this matter, there are circumstances which indicate where the guilty person is to be found. “It may be true, that on the day of the explosion when he went home to din- ner, Mr. Upham carried with him a box, and placed it in the photographic * dark room; it may be true that it was this box, or the contents thereof, which exploded; but is it true that this box was delivered to him, as he says, by a man calling himself P. Jason, to be shipped to J. Louden, at Winfield? The testimony of Mrs. Upham would seem to corroborate him as to a box being brought home and placed in the dark room. ( 13.) The testimony of Dr. Wood, as to the wood fiber, bran, etc., found in the wounds received by Mrs. Upham and Mabel, would seem to ftidicate that the explosive was in a box; but be- yond that, his testimony stands alone. The evidence relied upon to corrobo- rate him contradicts him, and his testimony, as well as his conduct, is so full of contradictions and inconsistencies, as to cause us to question the truthful- ness of at least a part of the testimony given by him. “Mr. Upham at first testified that, as he remembered, this box was the only package received by him for shipment on that day. (40.) At the time he gave his testimony there had been nothing said publicly about sending for the books containing the entries showing the business of the office at Coffeyville for that day, and which had long before been sent in to the offices of the ex- press company. These books were afterwards procured by the committee. Instead of there being but one package delivered to him on that day, as he testified, the books show eighteen entries of packages delivered for shipment on that day (561), all but four in Mr. Upham’s handwriting. (562.) He testi- fied that this package was entered upon the express book at the time it was delivered to him, about eleven o’clock in the forenoon. (24, 560.) That being so, the entry would naturally appear somewhere near the middle of the entries showing the day’s business. Instead of that, it is the last entry made in the book on that day. (561, 562.) He testified that he was directed to ship the box to J. Louden (24, 27), and gave that as the name in a written statement made at that time. (599.) The express books, when produced, showed that the name was L. Louden. (561.) “When he was first examined a number of questions were asked him about a way-bill which would, in the usual course of business, be made out to accom- pany the box, and he testified freely and without hesitation concerning it. He said that he made out a way-bill for the package before he went to dinner, and left it on his desk; that he took the way-bill with him when he went home 142 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. that afternoon (40), and presumed it was sent off with a dummy or decoy pack- age that was sent to Winfield in place of one which exploded. (24, 40, 156.) Several weeks afterwards, the committee was requested to send for the ex- press agent who was at Winfield at the time, to prove that no way-bill ‘came to Winfield with this decoy package. Mr. Upham then stated to the com- mittee, informally, that there was no need to do that; he would admit that no way-bill was sent with the package, and would explain the matter. Being again called to the stand, he testified that after the explosion, but sometime during the same evening, he wrote a note to Mr. Sturr, a clerk in the store where the express office was kept, gave the keys and note to his brother, who went down to the express office, found the entry on the book, and the way-bill, and returned ‘with the original way-bill,’ and handed it to him with a decoy package; that he laid the package on the table and the way-bill on the mantel shelf, left instructions to have both taken to the train, and in the morning found that the package had gone, but the way-bill was still there; that he did not know what became of it — the house was in confusion, and many things got lost. (598.) This was a direct contradiction of the testimony given by him in regard to the way-bill in the first place. (40.) “Again, when he was first examined, he was asked why he did not take the way-bill to his house at noon, when he took the package. This he explained by saying that he was to return to the express office after dinner, to attend to the' business of the afternoon; that it was his custom to leave the way-bills at the office until he made up the run at night before he went home for good, and then to tie them together, ready to take to the train. (40.) “In this connection it should be remembered that the reason why Mr. Up- ham was in the habit of taking the express matter which was to go on the night train to his house, was to save the trouble of returning to the express office after he had left it for the day, it being much nearer to go from his house to the station than to go via the express office. (23, 24, 25, 30; Exhibit 2.) “He testified that he did return to the express office in the afternoon of the . day in question, and after transacting such business as there was to do, re- turned to his home toward the close of the day. (25.) If this part of his tes- timony is true, the way-bill must have been at his house, ready to be taken to the night train with the box. But this is in direct conflict with his later tes- timony, where he says that his brother found the original way-bill at the office, and gave it to him with the decoy package. (598.) And his last statement is again contradicted by his brother and Mr. Sturr, who both swear, in affidavits, admitted in evidence by consent of all parties, that it was a copy of the way- bill, made out by Mr. Sturr from the forwarding-book, as requested by Mr. Upham in his note, and not the original, that was taken over to Mr. Upham’s house with the decoy package. (592, 593.) “Mr. Upham testified that he was developing the picture of Mabel (his adopted daughter), which he had taken during the noon hour of that day. (25.) Mabel testified that she had no recollection of ever having sat to him for her picture; that it was some out-of-door picture that he was developing. (22.) Mr. Upham was then but a beginner in photography; if he had taken Mabel’s picture that day, it would seem as if she would have remembered it. Mr. Upham testified that he had no flash- powder, or other explosive in his laboratory. (25, 41, 596.) Mr. Glasse, a photographer living at Coffeyville, testified that Mr. Upham had plenty of flash-powder, and offered to lend him some.” REPUBLICAN REPORT. 143 [But this offer was proved later to have been at another time. (596 .) — Ed.] “The truth is always consistent. Where a witness makes statements about the same thing, which contradict, or are inconsistent with each other, it fol- lows that at least one of the statements must be untrue, and it suggests the possibility that all of them may be. From the nature of this case, the posi- tion which Mr. Upham occupies as a suspected person, his anxiety to shield himself, and the manner in which this testimony was given before the com- mittee, and it does not seem possible that all of these contradictions and in- consistencies could be the result of mistaken recollection. It would hardly be possible for a person to remember the same thing so many different ways. These considerations seriously affect the credibility of Mr. Upham’s testi- mony, and of themselves would be a sufficient reason for rejecting any or all of it. “Again, some stories are so unreasonable, so inconsistent with known and established facts, that we have but to try them by the criterion of common knowledge and experience and they fall to pieces. Let us apply this test to Mr. Upham’s story, considered in connection with the other facts in the case, and see if it can be sustained. Let us follow out the theory based thereon to its natural and logical conclusion, and see if we can reasonably account for this explosion in that way. “The effect of this explosion as shown by the evidence — the testimony of Dr. Wood as to the foreign substances taken from the wounds, the testi- mony of Mrs. Upham as to the sissing noise preceding the explosion for a moment — would seem to indicate that there was a box containing a powerful explosive, arranged to be set off by a fuse to be ignited by some friction at- tachment or otherwise — a regular infernal machine, in fact. So far as the testimony in this case goes, no one has ever heard of any person by the name of P. Jason, or J. Louden, either in the vicinity of Coffey ville, Winfield, or elsewhere. It is fair, therefore, to say that the names are fictitious and that the parties assuming them were desirous of concealing their identity. This seems to have been taken for granted by all parties during this investigation. From these facts it naturally follows that the purpose of the parties in ship- ping the box was unlawful or criminal, and that they desired to so manage the affair as to escape detection and punishment. It is a matter of common knowledge that men who register at hotels are noticed and looked after by the landlord; that men who do business with express companies are likely to be noticed, and if receiving a package, must be identified and sign a receipt for it. Instead of keeping away from hotels and express offices, instead of going quietly to the place where the crime was to be committed, with their explosive concealed in a bag or a bundle, setting it off and going away, as any person who did not desire to be detected would have done, it would seem, upon the theory based upon Mr. Upham’s story, that they deliberately laid a trap for themselves and tried to walk into it. The explosive, or bomb, is so improperly or unskillfully contrived as to be as likely to destroy them as the person intended to be injured. This is shown by the fact that it did explode without any known cause, at a place where, on this theory, it was not intended to have any explosion take place. The fuse is timed so short that the crim- inals could only get a few steps away. This is shown by Mrs. Upham’s testi- mony, that the sissing noise was heard but for.a moment before the explosion. On this theory, they plan it for one of the criminals to go to the express office in Qoffeyville, deliver the explosive there, give a name and shipping direc- 144 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. ' tions to the agent; and for the other to go to the express office in Winfield, be identified as the consignee, sign the book and get the package. Suppose the explosion had occurred at Winfield: inquiry would at once be made if any strangers had been seen about. The express agent would remember the stranger, Louden, a name never before heard there, who received the pack- age. The place of shipment would be known; the criminals are not mythical personages, but are actually in existence; and with a full description of both, and other matters to aid in the identification, their capture would be certain. This is the theory, based upon the truth of Mr. Upham’s testimony, followed out to its logical conclusions. If we accept one we must accept both. That two criminals about to commit a crime with an infernal machine, anxious, of course, to conceal their identity, provide themselves with a machine as likely to destroy them as anyone, and deliberately adopt a plan most likely of all others to result in their destruction and punishment, is a conclusion which, to say the least, does not seem reasonable. “There is no direct testimony showing that Mr. Upham, either purposely or accidentally, caused the explosion; but there is a long chain of circum- stances which point to him as the person responsible for it. The contradic- tory, inconsistent and unreasonable statements made by him in regard to the matter, is a circumstance which of itself creates a strong presumption against him. “Referring again, briefly, to some of these matters, as they appear from his testimony, the books kept, and affidavits secured by him. It appears that he only received one package that day; that he received eighteen packages that day; that the package in question was received and entered upon the book about eleven o’clock that day, and should appear in about- the middle of the record of that day’s business; that it was not entered until the close of busi- ness, and is the last entry upon the book for that day; that the original way- bill for this package was sent away with the decoy package; that it was not sent away, but was left by mistake; that the original way-bill was at his house at the time of the explosion; that it was not thereat that time; that after the explosion he sent for and got the original way-bill; that it was not the origi- nal way-bill he sent for and got, but a copy, made from the forwarding-book. And, as appears by his own and other testimony, that it was not Mabel’s pic- ture that he was developing, and that it was her picture; that he did not have any flash-powder in his laboratory, and that he did have plenty of it. “The fact that the entry on the forwarding-book appears at the close of the day’s business, as the last entry, instead of where it should appear if Mr. Upham’s testimony is true, is especially significant, and would seem to indi- cate that the entry was an afterthought, put there for a purpose, in anticipa- tion of events about to occur. Mr. Sturr swears that it was only a few minutes after the explosion when he received the note from Mr. Upham, ask- ing him to make a copy of the entry on the forwarding-book (591); and Mr. Upham’s brother also swears to this. (592.) Why was he sending witnesses to the express office to look at and copy the entry on the book so soon after the explosion? Why were all the other scraps of writing — the description of the man and box written at the time (599), the letters and telegrams (597) — preserved, and the original way-bill, which he had, as he says, the next morn- ing after the explosion, lost? He seems to have made no real effort to have the criminal apprehended, other than to give what purported to be a descrip- tion of him to Deputy Sheriff Clifford. He never spoke to the county at- REPUBLICAN REPORT. 145 torney, and seemingly manifested the greatest indifference in regard to the matter. (36.) Before his wife and daughter were out of danger, while they were still confined to their beds, he left them and a pleasant home, owned by his wife, at Coffeyville, resigned his situation there, and went away to the State of Maine; secured a situation there, removed his family there; in eight or nine months thereafter, he resigned his situation there and returned to Coffeyville, and again took up his residence there. His reasons for these fre- quent and expensive moves are far from satisfactory. (33, 35.) The novice in crime usually thinks that the eyes of the world are upon him, and that he, of all others, is suspected as the guilty person. In this case the thought sug- gests itself that Mr. Upham may have desired to put a long distance between himself and the scene of the explosion. After a few months, finding that the course of suspicion was not directed towards him at all, but in an entirely dif- ferent direction, he may have felt safe to return. “The laboratory or dark room was built but a few days before the explo- sion. (592.) Mrs. Upham and Mabel, upon his special invitation, go there for the first time (14, 21), almost to their death. How the fuse was prepared, or how it was set off, the evidence does not show. Whether by some friction de- vised to be operated by pulling a string, or moving the package, the evidence does not show. That it was a short, a very short, time fuse, the evidence does show. (14.) And that it burned its way to the deadly explosive and ignited it during the short space of time which elapsed while he had gone some twenty or thirty feet after a pail of water, is also shown. Was this building of the dark room or laboratory, only three or four days before, this using of it as a store-room for this package, this first invitation of his wife and daughter to enter the room, this necessity for the pail of water, and this setting-off of the fuse so that the explosion would take place just when he was at the pump, all a coincidence? It is possible, but to us it does not seem probable. “The concurrent resolution authorizing the committee to continue this in- vestigation after the adjournment of the Legislature, provided that the com- mittee should, in its report to the Governor, make such recommendations as it deemed advisable. The only recommendation which we have to make is, that in the future the investigation of alleged crimes, in no way connected with the administration of any public office or trust, shall be left to the ma- chinery of the State created for that purpose. “Respectfully submitted. C. H. Kimball, J. G. Mohlek, Members of the committee on the part of the Senate. C. N. Bishoff, Member of the committee on the part of the House . [ It is not our purpose to distort in any way the evidence before the commit- tee, nor to offer any explanation for seeming contradictions, and will in this case only suggest that the terrible shock to Mr. U pham’s system at the time of the explosion mangling his family — this may have been a reason for the discrepancies that appear between his evidence (40) and the books of the company, and for any seeming indistinctness of his memory. It will not be out of place to cite the evidence which contradicts the vile insinuation con- tained in the last paragraph but one. (569.) 146 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Dr. J. A. Wood on the stand: Q. From your personal knowledge, what has been the relation existing be- tween Mr. Upham and his wife during the period of time that you have been acquainted with them? A. So far as I know, it has been very pleasant; seemed to live very happily together. Mr. Clifford testified most positively to the same thing (381); so that the horrible insinuation is groundless, and only put forward as a feint — an effort to hide the tracks to the Republican camp, by magnifying or manufacturing entire a suspicion to throw upon some one else. — Ed.] REPORT OF REPRESENTATIVES EZRA OAREY, M. SENN, G. W. CRUMLEY, AND T. M. TEMPLETON, THE ALLIANCE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. “We, the undersigned, the members of the joint committee, beg leave to present our views as to the circumstances surrounding the explosion of dyna- mite at Coffeyville, and the parties connected therewith, as ascertained from the testimony hereto appended. “As to the theories indicated in the preliminary report, we do not find any evidence in support of the theory that the explosion was caused by careless- ness in handling, or the improper use of chemicals used in photography. “The testimony of Mr. Upham is, that he had no chemicals in his possession that were explosive. (Page 23.) “Mr. Glass testified that he saw such chemicals in the (Upham’s) dark closet about ten days before the explosion (page 352), but was evidently mistaken. (See affidavit of David Parks, page 592.) Upham testified that he had the chemicals mentioned by Glass a. year later. (Page 596.) “In regard to the second theory, that of malicious intent on the part of Upham to kill his wife and adopted daughter, we find the only testimony in support of this is that the servant girl of Mr. Upham told a colored man, who told Mr. Connor, that the family relations of Mr. and Mrs. Upham were not pleasant. Against this far-fetched and hearsay testimony we have the direct testimony of N. M. Clifford. (Page 381.) So that the committee rejected as unnecessary the offer of Mr. Upham to subpena twelve more witnesses to prove that the most pleasant relations existed between them. The fact that the entry of the box delivered by P. Jason, and addressed to J. Louden at Winfield, is at the bottom of the page in the forwarding-book, and the way- bill lost, can easily be accounted for by the confusion and excitement which followed the explosion, and on account of different persons attending to the duties of the office on that day. (Page 591.) “The third theory, that it was revenge on the part of the Union Labor party on account of the Yidette expose, no evidence being offered in support of this, except from assertions in newspaper articles, we dismiss it as unsup- ported and untenable. “The fourth theory is, that it was a scheme of Ed. P. Greer, Bion S. Hutch- ins, C. A. Henrie, and probably others, to add force and emphasis to the second Yidette expose, thereby injuring the Union Labor party, and throwing sus- picion on the Vincent brothers as being anarchists and dynamiters. In sup- port of this theory we find a large amount of testimony. About the 4th of October, 1888, the Winfield Courier published the so-called Yidette expose of POPULIST REPORT. 147 what he called the secret political, revolutionary, treasonable, and anarchistic organization, trying, in the most exaggerated language, to convince the peo- ple that this organization controlled the Union Labor party, which was then in the field with a ticket. (Page 119.) This expose fell flat, exciting more ridicule than serious consideration. “Soon after the first expose a consultation was held between Ed. P. Greer, Hutchins, and Booth, in regard to a second expose. (See telegram of Booth to Greer, page 94; Poorman’s letter to Greer, 123; telegram on page 96.) “ Remembering, however, how unwilling the people were to believe that the farmers of Kansas, who largely constituted the Union Labor party, were con- trolled by a set of revolutionary anarchists, they determined to give emphasis to the expose by having, at the proper time and place, an actual explosion. Undoubtedly the intention was to take all possible precaution against anyone being directly hurt by the explosion. In proof of the correctness of this theory, we refer to the testimony of Yolney Beard (page 126) in regard to a conversation he overheard between Ed. Greer and Sol. Burkhalter. Also the testimony of Congressman Clover, his son Ben. Clover, Dr. Musgrove, L. G. Frybarger, W. H. Finney (pages 141 to 158), and Dr. Rude’s testimony (page 414). The testimony of these witnesses points unmistakably to a plot includ- ing explosives. The effort to impeach the truth of these statements by the testimony of Sol. Burkhalter (page 295), and Hendricks and Wilson (page 303), has only added strength to it. The testimony of J. W. Carter ( page 577), H. U. Curfman (578), and E. B. Emory (579), establishing the truth of Beard’s testimony. “Lee Jones’s testimony (page 534), given unwillingly and under protest, also indicates that explosives were contemplated in connection with the Vi- dette expose.” [ Inasmuch as this is matter not heretofore widely published, we append that portion of Mr. Lee Jones’s evidence that bears upon the case at issue. (Mr. Kimball forgot (?) it in his report.) Lee Jones, being duly sworn, testified as follows: Examined by Mr. Henderson: Q. You may state your name to the com- mittee. A. Lee Jones. Q. Are you acquainted with one W. A. Gebhardt? A. I know him — yes, sir. Not intimately acquainted with him. . . . Q. Did you have any conversation with him upon that occcasion with ref- erence to the so-called Coffeyville dynamite explosion? A. Yes, sir; I believe I did. [Gebhardt was Asst. Sec. with Hutchins for Rep. Com. in 1888. — Ed.] Q. Did you have any conversation with -him with reference to the action of the Republican State Central Committee of 1888? A. Yes, sir; some talk with him. Q. Did he, in that conversation, state to you what connection, if any, he had with that committee? A. He said, but I have forgotten what it was. Q. Do you remember the conversation, or the substance thereof, that you had with him upon the occasion which I have mentioned? A. I remember some of it. 148 POPULIST l HAND-BOOK . Q. Will you kindly state to the committee what that conversation was? Mr. Curtis said: We object to that question. Mr. Gebhardt lives in the State of Kansas, and can be produced as a witness. Mr. Carey stated that the witness had been subpenaed, and was sick and could not come. The question was allowed to be answered. A. I would like to say to the committee that this conversation was given to me confidentially, and any statement that I make I do so under protest. The conversation, as near as I can remember it — I met Mr. Gebhardt, and asked him what he was here for, and he said he came down to attend the convention. We talked quite awhile. I being a Democrat and he a Republican, we talked quite awhile. I asked him what they were going to do with the Farmers’ Al- liance, and he laughed and said, “We will get away with them the same as the Union Labor party.” And I asked him to tell me how that was done. After swearing me to secrecy on all the oaths he knew, he told me that Mr. Henrie, Mr. Hutchins and himself — that is the only three I can remember — ar- ranged this expose in room No. 7, at the Windsor Hotel; and that is about the sum and substance of the whole business. Q. Was there anything said about the explosion in that connection ? A. Why, I believe it was talked over; yes, sir. Q. What did he say about that ? A. I cannot remember. I asked him if they did not prepare the box up there. He laughed the matter off. It was just a running conversation of that kind. By Senator Kimball : Q. You have stated the sum and substance of all of it? A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Henderson: Q. Is it not a fact that in that conversation he told you, Mr. Jones, that the box that exploded at Coffeyville was prepared at Re- publican headquarters, or words to that effect? A' I do not remember that he did. Q. Do you remember what he said upon that question? A. I have just stated that it was a running conversation; that was all there was to it. And I cannot remember the details. Q. You do know that the preparation of the box was mentioned in that con- versation? A. Yes, Sir; I think it was. . . . By Senator Kimball: Q. But you say, Mr. Jones, that when you did charge that this dynamite bomb was prepared at Republican headquarters here in Topeka, that Mr. Gebhardt denied that? A. No, I did not say that. I cannot remember that he denied it, or affirmed it. I have been trying to think of the reply that he made me. It was some kind of a witty reply. Q. You say he did not admit it? A. Not to the best of my knowledge. By Judge Webb: Q. You said you asked him what they were going to do with the Farmers’ Alliance? A. Yes, sir. POPULIST REPORT. 149 Q. What was his reply? A. Get rid of them the same as they did the Union Labor party; that is as near as I can now remember it. Q. Did you ask him how they got rid of that party? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did he tell you they got rid of it? A. As I say, he went on and told me, after swearing me to secrecy about the expose, that he, and Hutchins, and Henrie, and I do not know but that he mentioned others, prepared it. Mr. Henrie was the only man I knew, and he said it was prepared in room 6 or 7 — I cannot locate the number — at the Windsor hotel. Q. How did it happen that there was any allusion made at all to the Coffey- ville explosion? A. Well, I cannot tell you how that did come up. Q. Do you remember any question that you propounded to him connected with that? A. After he had told me what he had, I just laughingly asked him if they had prepared a bomb up there too. Q. Any answer to that? Did he make any reply? A. Yes, sir; he made some reply — some witty reply. I cannot say that he said they did make it, or did not make it. . . . Q. You say that what was said to you was said under injunctions of secrecy? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. Did you gather or infer from the conversation that you had with him that he knew where this bomb was prepared? A. Yes, sir; I believe he does know, if you want my opinion. This is the substance of several pages of record evidence, and those present were convinced that Mr. Jones was not only honest, but careful. The addi- tional fact that he was an unwilling witness, refusing to come until threat- ened with an attachment; he told only what he must tell under penalty of perjury — this materially adds to the importance of his testimony. — Ed.] “As to C. A. Henrie’s connection with the preparation and delivery of the box at Coffey ville, we refer to Upham’s description of the man who delivered the box to him (page 27); I. M. Waldrop’s description of the men seen at Yaleda on the evening of the 18th of October (pages 571, 577); also the testi- mony of Mrs. J. G. Cougher, that in a conversation between her husband and Henrie she heard Henrie give the name of the hotel where he stopped at when in Coffey ville (page 212); also the other fact, that the hotel register shows that two strangers registered in Coffeyville on the 18th of October, 1888. (Page 869.) “Now suppose him to wear a false beard (see evidence in regard to that on page 379) and extra suit of clothing to give him a heavier appearance, and the description given suits that of Henrie very well. The peculiarity of very rapidly winking his eyes was strikingly observed of C. A. Henrie when on the witness-stand, especially when becoming nervous under cross-examination. Also the fact of part of his hair coming down over one side of his forehead. Such peculiarities are of far greater importance for the purpose of identifica- tion than slight discrepancies in weight, whiskers, and age. The description of his eyes, while not strictly correct, only corroborates the testimony that he —9 150 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. is the man. His eyes actually appear dark, when viewed from a certain dis- tance, he standing in the shade, although they are blue. “Mr. Waldrop was able to point out Henrie in the Senate chamber as the man whom he believed he saw on the evening of October the 18th, at Valeda, after over two years had elapsed. On the witness-stand, Mr. Waldrop stated that he would not positively swear that C. A. Henrie was the man, but to the best of his belief he was. (Page 571.) The manner and appearance of Mr. Waldrop under examination stamping him as an honest and conscientious man. “A careful reading of the testimony of Samuel C. Elliott, county attorney of Montgomery county in 1888 (pages 48, 53), and also that of O. P. Ergen- bright, his successor in 1889, almost forces the conclusion that they were more desirous to prevent the finding of the guilty party than to prosecute. While pretending, through published letters, a willingness to prosecute, no one can read the testimony of O. P. Ergenbright and correspondence (pages 63-67) without becoming convinced of his desire to shield and to prevent ar- rest and trial. “In addition to this, read Highleyman’s testimony about his efforts to prosecute, and the manner in which the officers responded (pages 242-254); and H. Vincent’s testimony on pages 266, 275. “The Legislature in 1889 passed a law which made a prosecution more dif- ficult. ( Page 275.) “Mr. Upham left a good home and a good position a few weeks after the explosion, while his wife and daughter were still in bed, dangerously wounded. He received $750 from the express company for the injuries received by his family from the explosion. (Page 597.) There seemed to be a studied effort in the testimony of Upham and family to hold back something. “All this leaves an impression on our minds that there was an influence brought to bear on him, which in the first place would prevent him from tes- tifying, when the Vincents made their effort to prosecute the guilty parties; and in this investigation may have induced him to withhold certain matters. “The defense claimed an alibi for C. A. Henrie. In proof of which, see affidavit of Mrs. Lucy Barlow (page 495), also affidavit of John F. Cummings ( page 448), testimony of D. O. McCray (page 446), testimony of Arthur Cap- per (page 463), and testimony of Frank C. Scott (pages 460,and 461). “The affidavits above referred to were secured by Henrie to be used by him in making a public denial of the charges connecting him with the explosion at Coffeyville. The affidavit of Mrs. Barlow was secured in August, 1889, and that of Mr. Cummings in June, 1889. Mrs. Barlow lived in Kansas City at the time. Henrie and his wife made a number of trips to Kansas City before he secured the desired affidavit. “Mr. Cummings, who is generally considered irresponsible, lives in Topeka. “Now we consider the course taken by Mr. Henrie to prove an alibi in 1889, as very inconsistent and unnatural, if he knew, at the time of securing said affidavit, that these men, who were employes in the Topeka Capital office, knew that he was at work in that office on October 18, 1888. “We believe that if he had had knowledge of those facts he would have secured their affidavits, rather than of persons who are unsettled in their busi- ness, and in a measure irresponsible, one of which resided in Kansas City. “The most reasonable thing to have done, would have been to secure the affidavits of the men with whom he claimed to have been employed on Octo- POPULIST REPORT. 151 ber 18th, 1888. Bat there is nothing in the testimony of either McCray, Capper, or Scott, which shows that there was anything said between Henrie and the above-named gentlemen as to what they knew of Henrie’s whereabouts on October 18th; but one of the above, Mr. Capper, testifies that he never was asked to make an affidavit, and has not had any conversation with Henrie about the matter since the fall of 1888, until two days before he gave his testi- mony before the committee. “As these three gentlemen are only positive as to one thing, namely, that Henrie was in the employ of the Capital office on the 18th of October, and as there are some conflicting statements regarding dates, as to Henrie’s connec- tion with the Capital at that time, it is possible, and highly probable, that they were mistaken in reference to the time of the issue of the Daily Capital in which the. second expose was published. “Dates on newspapers do not always indicate correctly the day of issue. For cause, the issue may be later than the date. “D. O. McCray says that Henrie, on the 18th of October, assisted in the preparation of the matter of an expose of Yidettes, to be published the next day (page 447); whereas Mr. Hutchins wrote from Topeka to Ed. P. Greer, of Winfield, on the 17th of October, ‘The forms are being made up’ (page 96) ; which shows that the matter was prepared and in the State printing office previous to the 18th; also states that he will send proofs out for publication on Friday morning, but ‘will advise by wire to-morrow, if it is to be printed by you Thursday evening.’ (Page 96.) “October 18, 1888, was on Thursday. The expose was to be printed in the Winfield Courier on Thursday evening, the 18th, as per telegram of B. S. Hutchins. (Page 96.) “The same matter that was published in the Courier at night was to be published in other papers of the State the next day. It therefore seems to us that the idea of Henrie being in the Capital office on Thursday, the 18th of October, assisting in the preparation of the matter of the expose, is not in harmony with the other facts as indicated above; and our opinion is, that the presence of Henrie in the Capital office was some other time than the 18th. “In rebuttal of effort to prove an alibi for Henrie, we find the affidavit of Edwin French, who lived in the same house with Henrie. (Page 178.) Also, testimony of Thomas A. Grange. ( Page 587.) French states that, to his positive knowledge, Henrie was not at home on October 18, 1888, nor at least for two days before the explosion, and not until notice of the explosion had appeared in the daily papers; that Henrie came home after the explosion, late at night, with gripsack in hand, as though he had been away on a journey. “On the second day after his return, a request came to the family of Mr. French, by Mrs. Barlow, for them not to mention Henrie’s being at home. “Further, Mr. Grange testifies that on the 18th day of October, the day of the explosion, the men called for Henrie at his home, but could not ascertain where he was. Why this privacy, if no wrong had been committed? “Also testimony of Mrs. Cougher (page 212), heretofore referred to, show- ing that Henrie was at a hotel in Coffey ville at some time on or about the 18th of October, 1888. “Additional proof that the managers of the Republican campaign are guilty of aiding and abetting the preparation and the sending of the box, is found in the appointment of C. A. Henrie as clerk in the Labor Bureau. 152 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. “A large amount of testimony plainly showing that he had been active in opposition to the' Republican party until August, 1888. The evidence also proves that on account of his personal dishonesty, immoral habits and gen- eral want of truthfulness, he had lost the confidence and respect of his former associates. (Page 583.) [588. — Ed.] “His willingness to betray his associates, and to perform any disreputable act, seemed to be a high recommendation for the managers of the Republican campaign to employ him. “The evidence shows that he was employed in preparing the matter of the so-called expose. A large portion of the time, while in the employ of the Re- publican Central Committee, he spent in traveling to Cincinnati, New York, and different cities in Kansas, where he had ample opportunity to procure the necessary material for a dynamite explosion. See testimony of J. W. Whitley (page 179), which shows that C. A. Henrie presided over a meeting in Topeka at which Parsons, the anarchist, spoke; and that he afterward went, with a few others, to a private house, where they talked for several hours; and Parsons explained the method of preparing dynamite, and the use it might have in future conflict. (Page 194.) “He admits in his testimony that he received pay for all services rendered to the Republican Central Committee at the regular price. “It seems difficult to suppose any reason for a Republican Governor to ap- point C. A. Henrie to any position. “No labor organization asked for his appointment. He was not a Repub- lican. “His personal character was such as to preclude his appointment to any position of trust or profit. “He was known to be an avowed anarchist, or at least to be in sympathy with them. “He had no recommendation from anyone, except Bion S. Hutchins and Henry Booth. And why they requested his appointment can best be judged from the testimony of Mrs. Cougher, when she states that she heard Henrie say that ‘they dare not refuse him.’ (Page 212.) It is impossible to think of any explanation of C. A. Henrie’s appointment, except that he knew about the damnable plot of preparing and sending the box, and that for the purpose of keeping him silent, the position was given him. The refusal of the Leg- islature of 1889 to investigate the explosion seems to us a confirmation of the theory that the managers of the Republican party were connected with it. “Surely such a serious crime, accompanied by such results, openly charged to a dominant party, ought to be worthy of an investigation. “Joe P. Winton, the business manager of the Winfield Courier , and Sid. Cure, a Republican officer, seem to be watching and waiting around the ex- press office on the morning of the 18th, when the box ought to have arrived at Winfield. (Page 316.) “The open charges of the Vincent brothers through the Nonconformist and otherwise, that the managers of the Republican party were responsible for the explosion, finally had the effect to bring leading Republicans together in consultation about the propriety of making a denial of the charges. ( Page 286.) “It was determined to obtain Henrie’s affidavits denying these charges. “Leland Webb was sent for by the Governor to draft the affidavit. After POPULIST REPORT. 153 some conversation Webb said, ‘I did not know that this administration was making that kind of appointments,’ to which the Governor replied, ‘Leland, we had to do it.’ (Page 286.) “As to the value of this affidavit in establishing the innocence of C. A. Hen- rie, we let the impartial reader judge after reading testimony on page 211, where Mr. Henrie states, ‘I can swear to anything.’ “The defense have the honor (if it is an honor) of putting two witnesses on the stand who admitted that they lied for political purposes. (Dr. Rude’s testimony, page 418; C. [J.] W. Henthorn, page 412.) “Ed. Greer’s and Bion Hutchins’s testimony abounds in distinctions be- tween private actions and political actions, indicating that their habits of thought and action have been of such'character that they have gradually lost all sense of obligation to tell the truth or act honestly in a political way. “While, we do not believe that the ‘purification of politics is an iridescent dream,’ we recognize, from the testimony offered in this investigation about the methods and practices of politicians, that there is an imperative necessity for such purification.” [We here append a portion of Greer’s examination as illustrative of the above, and ask the reader to note who asks the different questions. E. P. Greer, being recalled for further examination, testified as follows: Examined by Mr. S^nn: Q. You have frequently charged the Vincents with being anarchists and socialists? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are, and have been an editor for some years? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have a fair knowledge of the English language, I suppose? A. Not technically, but reasonably fair knowledge as to the general acceptance. Q. What is the definition of an anarchist? A. Whose definition? Q. I mean the definition as it is^generally supposed to be understood? A. I have given my individual definition of the word anarchists. I cannot repeat the technical definition of the word. Q. You certainly have some idea of what the proper definition of the word is? A. I cannot give you anyone else’s definition except my own. Q. You admit, then, that you have used that word for years without any knowledge at all of what the proper meaning is? A. No, sir; I do not admit anything of the kind. Q. Then give what you understand is the proper meaning of the word. A. I understand the proper meaning of the word to be one committed to a change in the social and political conditions of the country, by civil means, if possi- ble, if not, by forcible means. Q. Do you not understand that the gist of any definition of anarchy means, to do away with law and order, to break law — to have no order, that is? A. To my mind, anarchy conveys the impression that the person entertaining anarchistic opinions feels at liberty to observe or disobey any laws according to his own individual opinion as to the justice or injustice of those laws; but 154 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. it does not convey the necessity of his breaking laws in order to be an an- archist. Q. What is the proper definition of socialism? A. I should apply the same definition by dropping the idea of force. Q. Do you not know that the words “socialist” or “socialism” and “an- archist” are exactly opposite? A. No, sir, I do not. Q. Do you not know that socialism, especially State socialism, 'implies more government, more law, and an ex- tension of the functions of gov- ernment, while anarchy means the doing away with government all together, and doing away with law? A. That is not my idea of social- ism as practiced in the United States. Q. Have you not heard of social- ism being practiced in the United States? A. I have heard of it quite frequently. Q. You admit, then, that you have used these two terms — so- cialism and anarchism — indis- criminately for years? A. I admit no such thing. Q. Then without taking the pains to find out what the words meant? A. No, sir; I do not ad- mit any such thing. Q. Have you ever taken the pains to look up the meaning of these words? A. Yes, sir. Q. You certainly do not mean to tell me that you found them to be identical? You don’t mean to say that one person could be an an- archist and a socialist at the same time? A. No, sir; I have not made any such assertion. I do not think that a person can be a socialist and an anarchist at the same time, but I think the two are upon the same general line of thought and action, except one is more extreme than the other — a great deal more extreme. Q. You mean to say that, after examination of the meaning of these words, that they are both in the same direction, only one is a little more extreme ED. P. GREER. POPULIST REPORT. 155 than the other? A. Yes; that is my conclusion after careful examination of every definition and feature and declaration of purposes surrounding the two classes of people. Q. Is it not a fact, as I stated before, that anarchy means the doing away . with law and order, and the breaking up of existing conditions? A. I believe that is Webster’s definition, substantially. Q. Now, is it not a fact that socialism implies the extension of the func- tions of government by adding new functions, such as the controlling of rail- roads, owning of ships, manufactories — in fact, everything that people do now on their own account? A. The definition you give should apply to Bella- myism. It is very distinct from socialism. Q. Is that not the definition the dictionary gives? A. I think the definition is something on that line; I do not remember the distinct definition as to so- cialism. Q. Then, after admitting this, you still insist that it is proper to call a man a socialist and an anarchist? A. I think that when people add to the doctrine of socialism the further doctrine of denunciation of courts, juries, and all that sort of thing, and that without exception, making that their rule of action as to all courts and all juries, that it comes pretty near making an anarchist. That is about my idea of it. Q. You have stated the personal character of the Vincents’ was good? A. I have so stated — yes, sir. Q. Do you believe conduct flows from character? A. I do. Q. How do you harmonize it that parties who have good character will form- ulate certain terrible doctrines as anarchy, and devise such schemes as you have charged them with? A. I did not imply in this matter of good charac- ter, any connection further than their every-day association with men. The matter of every-day association, and the matter of principle and life doctrine, are entirely two different principles to apply to personal character. Upon the first principle, I say they are gentlemen of excellent personal character; upon the second principle, I say that their excellency of personal character make them that much more dangerous in teaching the doctrines which they seem to hold. Q. What is the definition of character? A. My definition of character is the general estimation in which an individual is held in the community, as to his immediate associations. Q. Don’t you confuse the definition of character with reputation? A. I may do so — yes, sir. Q. Is not character that which a man really is, not what he seems to be? A. The two words are often used in the same connection and for the purpose of impressing the same idea; but the technical definition is on the line which you suggest. 156 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. Do yon believe that a man of good character can be guilty of mean or bad actions? A. Yes, sir; I do. That is my idea of things; probably not as to his private actions. Q. You seem to make a great difference between different actions of men; that is, between his private actions and his public or political actions? A. I do. By Senator Kimball : Q. This statement which you have made, and the distinctions which you have made or drawn between the private lives and public acts of people, are based, I suppose, upon your own observation, and your reading of history and the experience you have had with the doings of mankind ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that is well established by the experience of mankind, that persons who have committed the gravest crimes against society, law, order and good government, are frequently men of unquestioned integrity and irre- proachable private character ? A. That is undoubtedly true. Q. And it was that distinction that you were referring to when you mad© the distinction between the private and public acts and character of persons? A. I believe I stated in my former evidence that the fact that persons whom I had designated as anarchists appeared to be sincere and honest and active in their convictions, made me feel that they were more dangerous than they otherwise would have been. By Mr. Senn: Q. Do you know of any men who have resorted to mean and low tricks to carry their point in politics, that were good and pure men in their private life? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please name a few. A. S. W. Chase, B. H. Clover, S. W. Strong, and Salem Fouts. I can extend this list if you desire. Q. I meant you to answer that question in reference to men that have passed down in history. A. But theories are generally proved by experience, and his- tory is the experience of the world. Q. I hope you will give some names that have been known as history. A. History generally leaves behind ordinary, every-day failings of people, and brings down to us their better actions and their better motives; therefore, it is difficult for me to state any person in history who would be an illustration of my idea of your question. By Judge Webb: Q. You said, Mr. Greer, in answer to a question of Mr. Senn, that you knew of several gentlemen of unimpeachable moral character who would resort to disreputable and improper means for political purposes; do you know any well-recognized or generally-acknowledged Republican that did that? A. Probably I do; but it is difficult to call them to mind at this time. Q. Can you think of any? A. I might if I had some time. Q. The fact is, that that class of men and politicians are a close corpora- tion, and don’t tell on each other, do they? DEMOCRATIC REPORT. 157 Witness was excused from answering this question. — Ed.] “Conclusion. — Our conclusions drawn from the foregoing review of testi- mony are, that there was a conspiracy on the part of some one to do certain things for the purpose of breaking the ranks of the Union Labor party and adding strength to the Republican party in the political campaign of the fall of 1888. “The Vidette expose was the first step in that line. This was followed by the second expose and the preparation of the box of dynamite, which would have been in Winfield, Kansas, October 19, had it not prematurely exploded in Coffeyville. “We are further of the opinion that C. A. Henrie had some connection with the preparation of, and delivered said box at Coffeyville, to be shipped by ex- press to Winfield to be exploded somewhere; and under the excitement following the explosion a raid would probably be made on the office of the Nonconformist. “We are further of the opinion that Bion S. Hutchins and Ed. P. Greer were cognizant of what was being done, if not direct participants of the same. “And further, that no man could have been appointed Commissioner of Labor who would not appoint C. A. Henrie to a position as clerk in said office. “And that said Henrie was appointed to the position which he holds to-day as a reward for the part performed by him, and to prevent him from reveal- ing what he knows of the affair which would implicate other parties. Ezra Carey, Chairman. M. Senn. G. W. Crumley. T. M. Templeton.” [Two (perhaps three) of the above committeemen were formerly Republi- cans, and cannot be said to hold any grudge to be satisfied, but have arrived at these conclusions from careful and mature deliberation after examination of the evidence. — Ed.] REPORT OF SENATOR EDWARD CARROLL, DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF COMMITTEE. “Topeka, Kansas, May 23, 1891. “Hon. L. U. Humphrey, Governor of the State of Kansas — Sir: It is already a matter of public knowledge that the committee appointed to investigate the so-called Coffeyville expose, has been unable to agree upon a report which in any way tends to fix the responsibility for that affair upon anyone, or to solve the mystery which surrounds it. Three reports have already been pre- pared and signed; one by the entire committee, which gives a brief history of the manner in which the investigation has been conducted, a description of the explosion, and some of the surrounding circumstances, and some of the theories which have been suggested to account for it; another by the Alliance members of the committee, which has been given to the public through the newspapers; and a third, signed by the Republican members of the committee. Eor convenience, I shall hereafter refer to the last two as the Republican and Alliance reports respectively. “I agree with the Republican report in some of its findings, but to some of the conclusions and matters stated I do not wish to be committed. The Alliance report contains some things to which I agree, and many statements to which I cannot conscientiously subscribe. 158 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . “This Coffey ville explosion happened in the year 1888. It was charged upon the Republican party by members of the Union Labor party; and by members of the Republican party it was charged upon the Union Labor party, and upon the National Order'of Yidettes — a secret political organiza- tion which then existed mostly within the Union Labor party. This political party (transformed into the Alliance party) coming into power, this explosion and the charges that had been made in reference to it were considered to be of sufficient political importance to warrant a parliamentary investigation, at an expense of many thousands of dollars to the people of the State. The in- vestigation has been had. No good has been done. No one has been shown to be guilty, and those who claimed to know so much before the investigation, when put upon the witness stand, knew nothing except what Mrs. Grundy had told them. “The general report states truthfully, that this was a political investiga- tion — a political quarrel, in fact, between the Republican and the Alliance parties. The Democratic party, it is needless to say, is not in it. Being the only Democratic member of the committee, belonging to neither of the in- terested parties, having no political friends to vindicate or enemies to punish, it is perhaps unnecessary for me to say that I can have no motive or purpose |in this matter other than to wrong no one and do equal and exact justice to all. “I am in hearty sympathy with the Alliance report in its animadversions upon certain unconscionable disciples of Ananias who deliberately invent falsehoods to deceive the public for political effect, and then go upon the witness stand and unblushingly testify to their own shame. There should be no distinction between the political and the private liar. The standard of morality should certainly be as high in those matters which affect the public weal as in those which relate to the private concerns of life. “A vast amount of evidence was introduced in the endeavor to connect the Republican managers of 1888 with the explosion, and while there was some evidence, generally of a hearsay character, which seemed to point in that di- rection, yet it was not sufficient, in my judgment, to show any such connec- tion, or to establish any of the charges referred to in the resolutions creating this committee, and I therefore agree with the special findings in the Repub- lican report numbered one, two, three and four, the same being found in said report under the head of “Special Findings.” “ The evidence shows that Mr. Henrie was an associate of the Chicago an- archist, Parsons, when the latter was in Topeka; that he was hired to go to New York and Cincinnati, in the interest of the Republican party, to help dis- rupt the Union Labor party, to which he ostensibly belonged, by assisting in organizing and keeping in the field the United Labor party and ticket; that he also aided in exposing the Order of Yidettes, with which he was connected. It would seem that he was generally engaged in the business of betraying his associates for hire, whenever he had an opportunity. “The evidence of the witnesses, Waldrop, Mrs. Cougher, Grange, and French, would seem to indicate that Henrie might be connected with this affair; yet I cannot see how this testimony, indefinite and uncertain as it is, can stand against the testimony of reputable witnesses like McCray, Scott, and Capper, who swear positively that Henrie was in Topeka on the day of the explosion, and the testimony of Cummings, Mrs. Barlow, Booth, and Judge Reed, all in- dicating that he must have been in Topeka on that day. “Considering the previous character and associations of Mr. Henrie, his ap- pointment to a position in the Labor Bureau would seem to be a suspicious DEMOCRATIC REPORT. 159 circumstance. He certainly ought not to have been appointed to that posi- tion, yet that bureau seems, from the evidence, to have been conducted as if it were a part of the Republican political machine instead of a State depart- ment; and from the standpoint of the managers who have of late years been in control of that party, it no doubt seemed fitting that he should be rewarded for the services, or supposed services, rendered by him to the Republican party, to which I have already referred. “The testimony of Leland J. Webb, if true, would seem to indicate that there was an unusual pressure brought to bear to secure the appointment of Henrie. I have no desire to comment on his testimony further than to say that there were circumstances surrounding the case which somewhat affect its credibility. “There is absolutely no evidence which in any way connects the organiza- tion known as the National Order of Videttes with this explosion, and I agree with the Alliance report in regard to that matter. I have not deciphered and read all the hieroglyphics introduced in evidence as the secret work of this order of Videttes, but so far as shown by the testimony, I have discovered nothing to indicate that this organization is any more revolutionary and treasonable than that very exemplary organization known as the Patriotic Sons of America, and some others that might be mentioned. The charter and initiation fees and dues, the salaries of the several ‘Supreme Cyclops,’ organizers, lecturers, etc., which pertain to organizations of this kind, were no doubt one of the main objects sought in the organization of the Videttes. The worst that can be said of the order, and that is bad enough, is that it is a secret political society, something so foreign to the genius of our Govern- ment that it is hard to understand how any intelligent American can be in- duced to ally himself with it. This is the one country where secret political organizations have no apology for an existence. “If the principles upon which any such society is founded are good, publish them to the world; if they are bad, the sooner they are repudiated and stamped out, the better for the country. “In conclusion, I have only to say that these views are submitted, leaving to the people of the State who may read the testimony to say whether my conclusions are correct and just, or otherwise. “Most respectfully yours, Edward Carroll, Senator 3d District , and Member of Committee .” [The chief recommendation of this report is its brevity. It should be stated here that all the committee were faithful in their attendance upon its sessions except Senators Mohler and Carroll, who seemed to take little or no interest in the matter. Mr. Carroll’s report contains a statement that indicates that he felt so little interest as to cause him to be very careless in reading the printed testimony; hence his conclusions are of very little value. He states that Judge Reed is one of the witnesses to prove the presence of Henrie in Topeka on Oct. 18. Inasmuch as Judge Reed’s evidence referred to the 19th and not to the 18th, it will be seen how careless the Senator was. We will now invite the reader’s attention to Judge Webb’s summary of the case. Note. — Attention is here called to a typographical error in the Senate Jour- nal, p. 292, where the record makes it appear that the Senate was acting 160 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. upon House concurrent resolution No. 28, instead of the Coffeyville resolu- tion, which is No. 23. By reference to the House Journal ( pp. 352, 372), it appears that No. 28 was first introduced by Mr. Coons on February 9; first read in the House February 10, and messaged to the Senate February 11 (Sen- ate Journal, p. 291), at the same time that amendments to No. 23 were mes- saged to the Senate, (p. 292.) The Senate never acted at all on No. 28, so far as its record shows, and Clerk Stacey has entirely omitted to mention it in his index to House concurrent resolutions. ( Senate Journal, p. 905.) It appears, however, on p. 653, House Journal, that the Senate concurred in No. 28. There- fore, from all attendant circumstances preceding and following, it is perfectly evident that No. 23 was under discussion, and acted upon instead of No. 28. ( p. 292.)] We will close this chapter with the following from one of the attorneys. A BETTER FROM THE TRENCHANT PEN OF H. G. WEBB. Henry Vincent , Esq., Winfield , Kas. : My Dear Sir — Having been connected with the legislative investigation of the explosion which occurred at the house of one Mr. TJpham, at Coffey- ville, Kansas, in October, 1888, known as the ‘‘Coffeyville Dynamite Investiga- tion,” and having given careful attention to the evidence produced before the committee holding the same, I did not deem it necessary to submit to the committee, or to the public, views which I entertain as to the force and effect of such evidence, and the conclusions to be deduced therefrom, until I had carefully read and considered the report made thereon by Senator Charles H. Kimball, Senator J. G. Mohler, and Representative C. N. Bishoff. The report by them signed, under date of May 9, 1891, addressed to Hon. Lyman U. Hum- phrey, Governor of the State of Kansas, is so wholly at variance with what I conceive to be fair and just deductions from the evidence; so thoroughly im- pregnated with specious representations and assumptions; so full of garbled statements, amounting to misrepresentation of the evidence referred to, and so pregnant of pure partisanship, disclosing as it does, the one great purpose on the part of him who framed, and of all who signed it, to shield, protect and vindicate Governor Humphrey, Henry Booth, Bion S. Hutchins, Ed. F. Greer, and C. A. Henrie, regardless of what is, or is shown to be, the actual truth. Mr. Humphrey is an avowed Republican; Booth and Hutchins were chair- man and secretary of the Republican State Central Committee; Hon. E. P. Greer, a prominent Republican partisan and official, is editor and publisher of the Winfibld Courier , the oracle of his party in the Arkansas valley; Sen- ators Kimball and Mohler, either of whom is competent, and neither of whom would be unwilling to prepare and proclaim as true the sentiments and opin- WEBB’S LETTER. 161 ions embodied in said report, if the needs of the party should require it, are Republicans, and, as such, zealous and unrelenting; C. N. Bishoff, a harmless, inoffensive gentleman, also a Republican, under the direction and dictation of stronger men than he, such as Kimball and Mohler, is willing to subscribe to that which he supposes to be of interest to his party. Mr. Henrie will be noticed farther on. For the reasons mentioned, I will submit some views and opinions gathered from and based upon the evidence given to and before the committee while investigating the afore-mentioned explosion. First: A formidable political organization, of upright intentions, actuated by proper motives, designing and intending to accomplish legitimate ends promotive of public interests and to subserve the general welfare, will employ only such means and agencies as the sober judgment and good conscience of decent citizens will approve and respect. Second: A party intent upon perpetuating its rule and dominion, regarding that as the paramount purpose to be achieved, will act upon th3 principle that the end justifies the means. Whenever a party is wanting in regard for justice and right, as such, it is the logic of history that it intrusts the inanagement and conduct of its po- litical campaigns to the keeping and direction of sagacious, unscrupulous and unconscionable partisans, whose peculiar characteristics induce them to employ the most daring, dangerous, disreputable, detestable, unscrupulous and villainous men and measures within their reach which they can command. History also proves that political organizations actuated by thoroughly self- ish and mercenary motives have not failed to gather around them characters possessing in a large degree qualities, the use of which tends to defeat the le- gitimate aims and purposes of well and honestly-conducted governments. The explosion at Coffeyville disabled and crippled for all time and nearly destroyed the life of a respectable woman and her daughter. No one pre- tends that the persons who are responsible therefor designed the explosion should there occur. Mr. Upham, at whose house it did take place, and whose wife and daughter are the physical sufferers on account thereof, was the agent to whom the explosive was delivered for shipment. His residence being nearer the depot than his office, and the train upon which the shipment was to have been made leaving for the west in the night-time, induced him, as a matter of convenience, to remove the explosive to his home. The purpose for which said explosive was designed, the end intended to be effected thereby, and the persons connected therewith, are the important matters, to ascertain which, the dynamite investigation was had. No legitimate purpose has been sug- gested for which the explosive was intended. The person leaving it with Mr. Upham, then calling himself P. Jason, is not known either at Coffeyville 162 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. or Winfield ( by that name), nor can he be learned of elsewhere. If he were a veritable P. Jason, and the explosive had been designed for a lawful purpose, and the consignee by him named resided at Winfield, or had directed express matter to be addressed to him there, some inquiry would have been made by him, or on his behalf, at the express office to which he had directed his ship- ment to be made; as in such event no blame could have attached to either consignor or consignee, for neither could have intended Mr. Upham would remove the explosive from his office to his residence, nor would the consignor, if actuated by good faith, have represented the box to have contained medi- cines in glass bottles, nor would Mr. Upham, had he known the real character of the express matter, have endangered the life of himself and family by re- moving it to and storing it within his residence. We, therefore, are compelled to account for the conduct of P. Jason upon another than upright purpose ; to do this, it is pertinent to inquire who might hope to derive benefit and advantage by an improper use of dangerous, yea , deadly agencies: In October, 1888, an earnest political campaign was rag- ing, upon the one side characterized by an unbending purpose to continue the reign of those who, for years theretofore, had exercised official authority for partisan purposes and personal aggrandizement in utter disregard of the rights of the masses and the material interests of the public ; upon the other, by an inflexible will and honest purpose to throw off unwholesome restraints, and to secure a recognition of the just complaints of a deeply-injured and sorely-oppressed people. The contest in Cowley county was earnest, thorough, bitter, and acrimoni- ous. Of those who were sanguine, active and alert upon the side of the party then in power, were the editor of the Courier , and the members of the Cowley County Central Committee ; among those who were actively opposed to Re- publican policy and tactics were the Vincents, who owned, edited and con- trolled the American Nonconformist, whose editor-in-chief is a bold, fearless and vigorous writer. In his editorials he discussed questions of governmental policy and political economy earnestly, thoroughly, and learnedly ; he ex- posed the pernicious practices and policy of the party to which he was op- posed so completely and unmistakably, that he became and was offensive to Republican manipulators and falsifiers. The Nonconformist was by them con- sidered an obstacle in their way, and regarded as dangerous to Republican suc- cess. The vote of Cowley county was considered an important factor in that campaign, in both the State and congressional contests. To control it, so as to secure thereof a large Republican majority, was considered important by Republican candidates and managers, and Greer believed his securing the post office at Winfield depended upon their success in that direction. The Republican State Central Committee, with its secretary, consisting as WEBB'S LETTER. 163 it did of earnest partisans of enlarged experience in furthering the ends of that party, conceived it necessary to employ measures adequate to the accom- plishment of the desired end; whether such means were decent, commendable or infamous, was immaterial. The important thing with them was, that the means should be such as would preserve Republican ascendancy in Cowley county. The Courier , therefore, charged the editor of the Nonconformist and their political adherents with teaching and advocating doctrines calculated to incite disorder in the State, disobedience to and resistance of its constitu- tional authority and legal requirements. It charged that they were traitors, engaged in promulgating doctrines of treason against the government of the United States; and thinking to im- press others with the truthfulness of said charges, the Courier , upon the 4th day of October, 1888, published what is called an expose of the se- cret work of the “National Order of Yidettes,” which is an organization consisting of men associated to- gether for reformatory purposes only, pledged to concert of action for the correction of political abuses, the maintenance of the right, and to secure an honest administration of the government, both State and na- tional. It is composed of men from all political parties, whose sense of duty and of right is sufficiently strong to induce them to withdraw from the political organization with which they respectively formerly affiliated, to the end that a correction and reformation of the evils tolerated, practiced and sanctioned by the old parties might through their efforts be effected. That an explosion occurred at Coffeyville, disastrous in its results, is indis- putable. That some one is responsible therefor, is equally manifest. That C. A. Henrie is fully competent and thoroughly equipped to engage in any vil- lainous undertaking, is no less doubtful. That Ed. P. Greer and the Cowley County Republican Central Committee, for political purposes, arranged with GEO. W. POOBMAN. “I’ll follow you to your death, d — n you.”— Poorman to Vincent , in 1888. 164 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . George W. Poorman to surrender his manhood, violate his oath and betray the confidence of his fellows, intending thereby to destroy the influence of the Vincents and their paper, is established by the evidence of Greer and the members of said committee. Their testimony, being against themselves, will, I suppose, be believed. That their effort of October 4, 1888, was abortive, only tended to exasperate Greer and those in that behalf acting with him, and they having commended Poorman to the charities and guardianship of Booth and Hutchins, by means thereof secured active aid from the State Central Committee and its tools, Henrie and McCray. Until C. A. Henrie entered upon the service of Booth and Hutchins, he had been generally known as an anarchist; was the intimate friend of Parsons, of Chicago fame; presided at public meetings which were addressed by Parsons, and is shown to have taken lessons from him in the manufacture of dynamite. Upon October 9, 1888, he visited Winfield, calling at the office of the Non- conformist and of the Courier ; registered at the Bobbitt House under the name of J. O. Brown, of Kansas City, Mo., having no business other than to learn what he could as to the political situation there. He told Greer his mission was to make inquiries concerning his friends, the Vincents. He was then in the employ of Booth and Hutchins, and his only inquiries after the Vincents, so far as known, were made of Greer. He denies having been at Coffeyville upon October 18, 1888, but told Mrs. Cougher at what hotel he stopped at Coffeyville. The hotel register of that date shows two strangers to have registered there. Two gentlemen were at Valeda in the after part of that day, having arrived upon a freight train from the west, one of whom was, by the agent at that point, recognized in the person of C. A. Henrie. Inter- mediate the arrival of the freight train at and the departure of the passenger train from Valeda, they were at and about the depot. The passenger train upon which they departed would, by way of Nevada, Pleasant Hill, and Kan- sas City, Kansas, reach Topeka on the day following. At the instance of Greer, Cooper, and Fry, Poorman procured a copy of the Vidette ritual, and a knowledge of the secret work of the Videttes, the former of which Poorman delivered, and the latter of which he betrayed and disclosed to Greer, from which, and the information thus obtained, Greer made the pub- lication of October 4th. Poorman’s perfidy, in that connection, awakened within him a sense of shame, which inspired him with fear of personal injury, but Greer, Cooper and Fry came to his relief, escorted him to a hotel, guarded him over night, supplied him with means upon which to travel, and gave him a letter of intro- duction and commended him therein to the confidence and favor of Booth. Poorman left Winfield for Topeka upon October 5th, went to Topeka, and re- WEBB'S LETTER. 165 ported to Booth, as was said to Greer by Booth or Hutchins; see page 69. Intermediate the 5th and 11th of October, to wit, on the 9th, C. A. Henrie ap- peared in Winfield, evincing great anxiety concerning Greer’s publication of the 4th; he was still in the employ of Booth and Hutchins. Poorman left for Topeka on the 5th, the day succeeding said publication, and four days before Henrie’s appearance at Winfield. I suggest, Greer’s letter and Poorman’s re- port to Booth clearly account for Henrie’s visit to Winfield and his interview with those whom he found at the office of the Nonconformist , and his anxious inquiries concerning the Vincents then by him made of Greer. Henrie left Winfield that same day, 'as he says, for Topeka, after which Mr. Greer was sum- moned to Topeka, by telegram from Booth, to which summons he at once re- sponded. I here inquire, Was that telegram sent by Booth because of Henrie’s report to him, upon his return from Winfield? That Greer answered Booth’s telegram in person, and, arriving at Topeka about noon of the 12th, immediately reported at the quarters of the State Central Committee, appears at page 75, in Greer’s testimony. He saw, at the committee rooms, Booth, Hutchins, and Prouty, and, after talking with Booth and Hutchins, was taken to a room in the hotel, then occupied by Henrie, to whom he was by Hutchins introduced. Greer published the first expose October 4th. Poorman left Winfield for Topeka October 5th, with letter of introduction to Booth. Henrie appeared at Winfield October 9th, interested only in the subject-matter of said expose and the condition and behavior of the Vincents. Upon the 10th or 11th Booth called Greer to Topeka, where he arrived about noon upon the 12th, and the only subject of interest and conversation between Booth, Hutchins, Greer and Henrie was that of the National Order of Videttes, the connection of the Vincents therewith, the exposures of their ceremonies and secrets which had theretofore been and were thereafter to be made. Read Greer’s testimony. Was Henrie at Winfield upon October 9th? No hotel register shows that he was. Greer, E. S. Moore and Henry Vincent say he was; Henrie himself says he was. He wrote the name J. O. Brown, as representing himself, upon the register at the Bobbitt House. So, if we were dependent upon Henrie’s sayings and doings for the ascertainment of the truth, we could not satisfac- torily determine it. If what he says be true, that which he wrote is a lie. If what he wrote be true, then what he says is a lie. The truth, however, regard- less of either his sayings or doings, is demonstrated by the sworn statements of Greer, Henry Vincent, and E. S. Moore. Was Henrie at Coffeyville on Octo- ber 18th? He says he was not. He said to Mrs. Cougher he was, and at what hotel he stopped. The register of that date does not show his name, but does show those of each of two strangers as guests of the hotel. The fact that he did —10 166 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. not register his real name in nowise disproves his having been there, for it is clearly manifest that he is capable of representing his name to be other than C. A. Henrie. What he says as a witness is wholly irreconcilable with what he said to Mrs. Cougher. The register of the Coffeyville hotel, Henrie’s state- ment to Mrs. Cougher that he was at a hotel there, the appearance of two strangers in the after part of that day at Yaleda, their departure therefrom upon the evening passenger, and the recognition of C. A. Henrie as one of them by the Yaleda agent, Mr. Waldrop, much more satisfactorily prove Hen- rie’s presence at Coffeyville than his bare denial refutes the accusation that he was there. If it be true that the measure of credit which should be accorded to one’s statements depends, to some extent, upon the known habits, practices and business relations of the one whose statements are involved, I maintain, applying such test in determining my last question, “Was Henrie at Coffey- ville?” that the evidence clearly preponderates against him, and conclusively establishes that he is wholly undeserving of faith and credit; that, notwith- standing his denial thereof, he was, upon the 18th day of October, 1888, at Coffeyville, and then delivered to Mr. Upham the package which afterward exploded at the agent’s residence. Why was Henrie then at Coffeyville? If for a proper purpose, there would have been no reason for withholding the fact of his presence, and the purpose thereof. The facts that he did not reg- ister his real name, the false statement as to the contents of the box, that it was consigned to one Louden, at Winfield, conclusively establish that the end sought to be effected by the use of the explosive was to occasion a demon- stration at Winfield, where the political fight was hottest, and where the sup- pression of the Nonconformist was, by the active Republicans, earnestly desired. You will ask, “How does it appear that such results would flow, or might have flown, from the shipment of dynamite to L. Louden?” It must be borne in mind that P. Jason requested the agent to direct the box, and gave him its destination and name of consignee; also, that Mr. Up- ham, the agent, "was quite deaf. Mrs. Leo Yincent was a Bowden. That name, when given to the agent, may have been, and, owing to his defective hearing, probably was, “understood as Louden. That the explosive was intended to play an important part with the Yincents and their paper, is, I think, clearly apparent. Henrie’s visit to Winfield October 9th, Greer’s talk with Burk- halter in front of Beard’s store on the 10th or 11th, his trip to Topeka upon the 12th, his consultation with Booth, Hutchins and Henrie while there, with his statement to Prof. Yincent at the Courier office on the 18th, that he “would have something interesting” for him, are matters needing explanations which are yet wanting (if those parties are blameless), which even Kimball and Mohler have not furnished. Immediately after the explosion, J. W. Hen- WEBB'S LETTER . 167 thorne charged it upon the State Central Committee and E. P. Greer, for political effect; p. 408. Dr. Thomas Rude, a prominent Cowley county Repub- lican, and intimate with Greer, told Hon. Ben. Clover that he was candidly of opinion that the whole matter was a concocted scheme of Ed. Greer’s and other fellows for political purposes; that that had always been his impression of the matter; p. 416. That persons, who are otherwise good citizens, will say and do things in the interest of the end and purposes of a political party of a character which they would neither say nor do in futherance of other ends, is shown by the evidence of E. P. Greer; page 580. The election of 1888 resulted in the choice of Lyman U. Humphrey for Governor. After the election was over, those who had supported him, and thought because thereof they had some claim upon him, importuned him to appoint friends and favorites of theirs to places within his gift. At that time F. H. Betton was Commissioner of the Labor Bureau, having been appointed thereto by Governor Martin. His term of office was two years. There was considerable competition for the place. Among aspirants thereto were D. G. Jones and J. G. Cougher of Shawnee county, the then in- cumbent, Betton, of Wyandotte county, and Frank A. A’Neal, the ‘‘Old Soldiers’” candidate; there may have been others. (See p. 202; a id L. J. Webb’s evidence, pp. 286, 287.) Mr. Cougher was clerk under Betton for some- thing over five years prior to November 16, 1890. He then quit work because Mr. Betton called for his resignation. Cougher, that year, was assessed by the Republican State Central Commit- tee for campaign purposes, which he refused to pay. His resignation was called for that his position might be given to a printer by the name of White, who paid $50 therefor. Cougher was twice notified by John H. Smith, secre- tary, of the amount assessed to him, and twice he refused to pay. Henrie began work in the Labor office in March or April, 1889. D. O. Mc- Cray was then executive clerk to Governor Humphrey. In August, 1889, he called at the Labor office several times to see Mr. Henrie concerning affidavits which the latter was to furnish ; this was after the interview had by the Gov- ernor at the executive office with Greer and Hackney concerning the charges of complicity upon the part of Humphrey, Greer, Booth, Hutchins and Hen- rie in the explosion at Coffeyville. It was also after prominent Republicans insisted that such charges should not longer remain unnoticed, but that, if they could, they should be refuted; correspondence between Gov. Humphrey and W. E. Doud, Esq., page 207. On July 9, 1889, Governor Humphrey, in speaking upon the subject, said to Mr. Doud : “In due time, a week or so hence, as soon as the material can be gathered and collated, a general reply will be made to the whole matter, not over my name, however, but by one of the prominent parties charged.” Further on, he says: “When the character- 168 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. less, irresponsible scoundrels making the charges shall have said all they have to say, and offer their evidence, if they have any, it will be our time to reply.” Whom does he mean by characterless, irresponsible scoundrels? Can he refer to the Vincents? If so, he does not believe the sworn state- ments of Greer or his friend, Hon. W. P. Hackney, each of whom has for years been in the front of Cowley county Republicans; each in his testimony says, in speaking of the Vincents, “ they were peaceable, quiet gentlemen, be- haved as good citizens, were honest, temperate, and industrious;” Hack- ney’s testimony, page 327. “The personal character of the Vincents is good; I have so stated ; I believe conduct flows from character;” Greer’s evidence, p. 581. A general reply to the whole matter was to have been made, how, and by whom? The manner of the reply was, to call a halt, and publish the facts in the case; this was to be done by Greer; Humphrey’s evidence, pp. 220, 221. Greer was to publish the facts concerning the explosion, and by them show who ivas , and who was not , chargeable therewith. It was then and there as- sumed that Greer knew the facts, or had confidential relations with those who did, and, therefore, could make them known. This interview was in July, ’89 ; Henrie was not present thereat, nor does it appear that Greer had corre- sponded with him at any time theretofore, after October, 1888, but, upon the contrary, Greer swears he had not ; still, the trio then consulting determined he was adequate to supply that which Greer was unable to furnish. Hackney, a lawyer of skill and ability, the friend of Greer, and a warm supporter of the Governor, had neither time nor inclination to prepare affidavits for Henrie to verify, or have verified, so Leland J. Webb, a frequent caller at the execu- tive office, and friend of Greer’s, was, by the latter, suggested as a suitable person to prepare them, and the Governor was to see Webb upon the subject; see evidence of Greer and Humphrey. The Governor remembers vaguely, just barely remembers, that he did have a talk with Webb concerning the matter, but is oblivious of what was said be- tween them, although the matter was of sufficient importance to induce the Governor to call Greer from Winfield to Topeka, that they might agree upon a plan of exculpating themselves and vindicating their party from the charges preferred against them, as was done by himself, Greer, and Hackney. He does not remember anything he said or did in furtherance of that plan. Hop- ing to aid his treacherous and defective memory, Webb was called, and, as a witness, related the conversation between himself and the Governor, as fol- lows: “Governor Humphrey called me into his private office and said he had conversed with Hackney and Greer about that dynamite outrage; that they had gone away and could not come back, but had agreed I should write some affidavits. I asked, What ones? He said, ‘Affidavits which that fellow in the Labor Bureau was to make.’ I asked, What fellow? He said, ‘Henrie.’ I WEBB'S LETTER. 169 said, Henrie? Henrie? what Henrie? He said, ‘That Henrie who was said to have been connected with that dynamite outrage down in Coffey ville.’ I said, I do not know him; did not know he was over in the Labor Bureau; that I did not know this administration was making that kind of appointments. He said, ‘Leland, we had to do it? I said, I thought Frank A. A’Neal was to have that place. He said, ‘These charges are very serious; they affect me person- ally, Mr. Greer, and my friends, and we had to do it. Hackney and Greer have gone away and cannot come back, and I want you to draw these affidavits.’ I said I was not in much of a hurry; that I thought it an outrage that a man like Henrie should, under a Republican administration, be appointed to a po- sition of that kind over an old soldier like Frank A. A’Neal; that Henrie was not even a Republican, but was an anarchist; that it would make no difference what affidavit he should make, that no one would believe him. I declined to draw the affidavits, and bade the Governor good-bye.” Webb gave this evi- dence upon March 9, 1891. It is either true or false. The Governor was again called as a witness on April 1, 1891 (after Webb’s evidence had been printed and made public), but his attention was not directed to the evidence given by Webb, nor was he asked to give the conversation had between him and Webb, which in his first evidence he admitted he had, but which he was un- able to relate. If the conversation were had under such circumstances and were of the character given by Webb, it could not have been forgotten, nor could Gov. Humphrey have been oblivious thereof. Hence, his failure to con- tradict it, his alleged inability to repeat substantially what was said between him and Webb, must be taken as an assent, upon his part, to Webb’s version of the conversation. Who were the we who had to do it? Why was it neces- sary for Bion S. Hutchins to request of the Governor that he give Henrie a clerkship ? The charges against Humphrey, Greer, Booth and others were, in the lan- guage of the Governor, “very serious,” and affected him, Greer, and the Gov- ernor’s friends. In substance, the Governor said: Booth, Hutchins, Greer, Henrie and thyself are charged with a high crime; my friends are becoming uneasy, and, like Mr. Doud, think we should answer and refute those charges, if in our power to do so. Hackney, Greer and myself, in consultation, arranged to do so; and, notwithstanding I am a soldier, and it is the declared purpose of our party, of which in the State I am the head, to give soldiers the preference as to place and position, to enable us to do so (vindicate our- selves) we had to ignore the claims of an old soldier, in the person of Frank A. A’Neal, turn our backs upon our promises and give the lie to our assur- ances, and place in a lucrative position a scalawag, an anarchist, and a man who, in the language of Bion'S. Hutchins, “we would not trust;” see evidence of Mrs. Lease; a man who, while doing our bidding, denies his identity, 170 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . passes and registers under an assumed name, and that we might suitably re- ward him we provided for an extra clerkship in the Labor office, and appro- priated $2,000 of the people’s money in excess of former appropriations on account of service in said office. “But,” says the Governor, “Henrie had been connected with the labor organization, and his appointment may please them; hence we had to do it.” Henrie’s appointment was not requested by any labor organization, nor by the representative of any one of them, unless the Repub- lican State Central Committee, with Republican candidates and political har- lots, persistently engaged in defaming good citizens by criminal means, endangering human life, and in outraging common decency, may be denomi- nated a labor organization. None but those who supported Humphrey asked Henrie’s appointment, and of them the Governor only remembers Hutchins. If neither the Governor nor any of the persons accused with him had inter- viewed Henrie as to his ability to exculpate them, as well as himself, by making known the facts pertaining to the explosion, why did the Governor, Greer and Hackney determine that Henrie should furnish the proof necessary to their deliverance? or did they agree among themselves that Henrie was the man upon whom to call when closely pressed, because from their ac- quaintance and transactions with him they knew him to be, as he said to Cougher he was , able to swear to anything? (Mrs. Cougher’s evidence.) Why, in reply to Cougher’s statement to Henrie, “I do not believe you will get a job,” did Henrie say, “I will; they dare not refuse me ”? p. 212. Who were they f He must have meant those who could give and had prom- ised to secure to him employment. “We,” when used by the Governor, and “ they ,” when used by Henrie, are synonymous, and mean Humphrey, the Republican State Central Committee, and their friends who aided the Repub- cans and had knowledge of their secret management in 1888. They only could give or influence the giving of a place under Governor Humphrey’s ad- ministration; the power then behind the throne, which was greater than the throne, consisted of the Republican State Central Committee, Bion S. Hutch- ins, and Ed. P. Greer. Why were they afraid Henrie would go back on them? Why was Henrie so confident that they would not, dare not , refuse him? A full response to either will be a complete answer to both these inquiries. Each was too well informed as to and concerning the conduct of the others. Booth* Hutchins, Greer, and Henrie, by reason of their confederation con- cerning and active participancy in the dynamite scheme previous to the explosion, and Humphrey, by having been informed thereof afterwards, occupied dangerous ground. The public was aroused, editors were getting uneasy, fears were awakened. The Governor was irritated that a Republican like Mr. Doud should think him guilty, and dare to suggest that he should vindicate himself against what, in the language of the Governor, were serious WEBB'S LETTER. 171 charges, of which Doud, with others from whom he received letters, written, as he says, along the line*of those from Doud, believed him guilty. To dis- pute and disprove the alleged guilt of those accused, we have the evidence of Greer, Hutchins, and Henrie, which is an elaborate plea of a felon, “Not guilty.” This single statement is the substance of the evidence given by them. They were not expected to confess their crime. To prove alibi for Henrie, is presented an array of testimony, consisting of two affidavits made by himself, one by Lucy Barlow, and one by John F. Cum- mings. Henrie says he did not do it, nor does he know who did; that he has no knowledge upon the subject. Cummings’ affidavit, at p. 448, should be read and preserved as a curiosity. He was personally acquainted with Hen- rie — had been for a year or more; saw him frequently in October and No- vember; met him on the evening of October 18th at the Grand Opera House, in Topeka; engaged him to report speech of Hon. David Overmyer; left him taking notes; on the next day received his report at the “Windsor.” This affidavit bears date June 25, 1889. Who is John F. Cummings? Where did he hail from? and where has he flown? He says he was business manager of the Daily Sunflower . If he held such relations to the Sunflower , it was, in truth, ephemeral. None but he and Henrie knew thereof, and he faded from view, leaving none to advise us of his whereabouts; he was simply a worthless jour- neyman printer — now you see him and now you don’t. He is like the wind “that bloweth where it listeth: thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell from whence it cometh or whither it goeth.” So is John F. Cummings. His affidavit, upon its face, shows it was carefully drawn, with a design to de- ceive, and was sworn to as a personal favor. (See Smith’s evidence, p.240.) On August 14, 1889, Henrie took Lucy Barlow, then of Kansas City, Mo., be- fore W. H. Young, of Kansas City , Kas ., where she made the affidavit signed by her (shown at p.495). Of her no unkind word will I say — the affidavit speaks an unmistakable language. Henrie made three trips for it before he procured it, and then it was necessary that Henrie’s wife come to his aid in securing it. Mrs. Barlow had known Henrie for eight years; while at Topeka she lived in the same house with him, and was almost daily in his rooms. She must have been upon good terms with Mrs. Henrie; therefore, when the wife importuned her on behalf of the husband, it is not strange that she consented to make an affidavit prepared, which was by Henrie explained to her as meaning what she supposed the facts to have been. An inexperienced woman could not in- terpret and construe the contents thereof so as to determine its legal import and significance. If it were a plain, simple statement of the truth, why any difficulty in obtaining it? and why should the maker thereof be taken from the State in which she lived for the purpose of verifying it? In July, 1889, Humphrey and Greer, with the approval of Hackney, deter- 172 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . mined to answer the charge against them, and to publish the facts pertaining to the Coffeyville explosion, Henrie to furnish proof thereof. Possibly the four affidavits mentioned and referred to disclose such facts, and advise one who is responsible for that explosion. If they do, he who gathers such in- formation therefrom must be able to read between the lines. Does anyone believe that Mr. Henrie, desiring only to have the truth known, would have depended upon Cummings and Mrs. Barlow, the one a tramp, the other an itinerant woman of Missouri, to establish it, when by going into the office of the Governor he could, by the statement of the Governor’s trusted and confi- dential clerk, have shown conclusively, that as to him the charges were abso- lutely unfounded, and could corroborate that clerk by two employes of the Capital office, both of whom were then in Topeka ? Is it probable, is it reason- able, is it true, that Henrie, knowing he could then command McCray, Capper, and Scott, and prove by each of them that he was , upon October 18, 1888, at the middle or fore part of that day, in Topeka, would have passed them by and relied upon the affidavits of Cummings and Mrs. Barlow, instead of making the proof, so near at hand, by persons permanently located ? Why were not McCray, Capper and Scott consulted and their evidence taken, when the charges were first made, and what they knew of then recent transactions .was fresh in their recollection ? But one reasonable answer can be given. Those men were employes of the Capital office; each, to some extent, but in different ways, took part in preparing for and aiding in the publication of the expose in their paper of the 19th; each then remembered the circumstances attending it; the remembrance of Capper and Scott would not then enable them to sub- serve Henrie’s purpose; they had no inducement to stultify themselves by making statements by them known to be false; neither had his attention di- rected to the circumstances attending said publication until after this investi- gation began, which was more than two years after the time of the explosion. Capper and Scott were engaged about their ordinary duties — the hum- drum of every-day toil. There is no reason why they should remember what were commonplace and apparently unimportant events occurring upon the 18th day of October more distinctly than those which occured upon the 15th or 25th of the same month, or on a given day of any other month; dates could only be given by either of them after having his memory refreshed by papers and documents presented to him, or the date desired furnished in the question propounded to him by counsel for defense, and frequently, when necessary to more particularly fix a date, by Senator Kimball, whose tact, skill and ingenuity are proverbial. Note this instance of the Senator’s effi- ciency. In Scott’s evidence (p. 461), the Senator asks: “Did this article which you have referred to, the ‘plate matter’ which you found upon the ‘turtle’ in your room, appear in the next issue of your paper WEBB'S LETTER . 173 after you found it there?” Scott said, “Yes, sir.” The Senator then asked, “Was that how you know it was on the 18th that you found this plate matter there?” Scott answered “That’s the way I know; yes, sir.” The Senator then said, “And it was published on the next day, which was the 19th?” “Yes, sir.” Again: ’‘“Was it in reference to this particular matter that you went to Mr. McCray? ” “Yes, sir.” When Mr. Scott had stated his residence and occupation, he was asked by Mr. Curtis, “Do you know C. A. Henrie?” He answered affirmatively. Counsel then said, “I will ask you to look at the Topeka Daily Capital, of Friday morning, October 19, for the purpose of re- freshing your memory, and ask you to state if you met Mr. Henrie upon the day before the publication of that paper?” Scott replied, “I did,” and was then asked “Where?” and answered, “In the editorial rooms of the Daily Capital .” He was asked to tell how he happened to meet him on that date. He replied: “ I came to the office about 12:30; I found the plate matter for this article upon the ‘turtle’ in my room; went to McCray to find out about the matter; what it was for. He and Mr. Henrie were in there, and had the proof of the article.” This is the fullness of Scott’s knowledge; he did not talk with Henrie; saw no more of him that day; does not know when he saw him last before or next after that time. Henrie had been employed in the Capital office some time before — Scott thinks two weeks or a month before; could not tell whether Henrie worked there that day, or when he did work, without looking at the pay-roll; that would have spoken the truth with exactness. It was in Henrie’s power to produce it, for the purpose of proving affirmatively, a fact (if it be one) important to him. Having the evidence at hand, and failing to furnish it, the legal presumption is, that it would, if produced, speak against the one being able and failing to' present it. Mr. Scott has, no doubt, seen Henrie at the Capital office, both when he was and was not at work there. How he can remember that he was there at a specified time of a particular day when he did not speak to or with him, nor hear a word said by or to him, does not know when he came, how long he stayed, or at what time he departed, whether he had seen him for two weeks or a month before, or how soon after he was visible to the employes of that office, is, at least, remarkable. He does not remember any better than did the Governor in his conversation with Webb. When we reflect the article was prepared, plate was on hand, and forms were being made up on October 17, or that Bion S. Hutchins wrote Greer that which was not true, we may reasonably conclude Mr. Scott to be mista- ken as to date mentioned by him ; see Hutchins’ letter to Greer, at p. 95. Mr. Scott was mistaken or Hutchins lied. Which is the more probable — the more charitable? Scott, long after an occurrence in which he had no direct interest, speaks concerning' it. Hutchins was writing of a matter in which he was deeply interested, and which he was directing at the time. The position, conduct and evidence 'of McCray must not be forgotten or overlooked ; he was assistant editor of the Capital , the organ of the party in the State ; he 174 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. expected to be and was made executive clerk — still holds that position ; that he is anxious to defend his chief, promptly, by honest means, is both natural and right ; to consent to do so by other means, upright men will t not. He was present at the conversation between the ‘Governor, Greer, and Hackney, on J uly 4, which was of two hours’ duration ; p. 456. At p. 458, he says : “ Greer, in that interview, was desirous to include in the publication (the answer to the whole matter) affidavits from the parties who knew that Mr. Henrie was in Topeka October, 18, 1888.” Henrie did not ask an affidavit from him, nor did he offer to make one ; he had listened to the arrangement of the Governor, Greer and Hackney, understood their purpose, knew what Greer wanted to in- clude in his publication, knew he could truthfully make one desired by Greer, which, with those who would believe it, would vindicate the Governor against what he considered serious charges. Why his silence and inaction in that be- half ? He was anxious Henrie should provide the affidavits required of him, called upon him twice concerning them, knew of the delay in furnishing them, and all this time was pregnant with knowledge of the one fact, proof of which would have at once quieted all misgivings as to the purity of the Governor’s motives and purposes. A faithful subordinate would not thus have neglected the good name of a high-minded and upright superior. McCray, while giv- ing evidence, was, seemingly, insincere, wanted to be smart , sought to evade questions and avoid answering them, by his action saying to the prosecution: I am an important part of this administration; by what right do you propose to question my action or motives? McCray has a distinct remembrance of the events of October 18, but is unable to state what occurred upon any other day, except the one upon which Humphrey, Greer, Hackney and himself had the interview. During the progress of this investigation he talked with Humphrey, Hutch- ins, Henrie, Greer, and Booth, as to what he knew and would swear; he does not remember that he talked with them all , at one time, but does remember talking with each of them. He must have needed much coaching to prepare him for an acceptable performance of a duty assigned him, as it became es- sential that he be interviewed and instructed by different individuals from time to time. He says he was talked to; that they were all talked to. By all , he undoubtedly means those who gave evidence concerning Henrie’s presence in Topeka October 18th, namely, McCray, Capper, and Scott. Capper’s evi- dence, when taken as a whole, is vague and uncertain. Scott relates circum- stances which, taken in connectton with other evidence, show that he may have been, and probably was, mistaken as to the day. Of McCray, each must judge for himself. The facts that, soon after the beginning of the Governor’s term he became executive clerk, and has since continuously held a position of trust and confidence toward the Governor; that it was his duty to guard WEBB'S LETTER. 175 and defend the integrity of the executive when wrongfully assailed, and thereby help to uphold, free from tarnish, the good name of the State; that the Governor was accused of complicity in the Coffeyville explosion, and with being cognizant that Henrie, pursuant to a common understanding of the conspirators, of whom the Governor was one, was personally at Coffeyville on October 18th, for the purpose of having the explosive shipped to Winfield; that the Governor deemed such charge serious ; that he, Greer and Hackney had resolved to refute it, and were anxious to do so by sworn statements of persons who knefa Henrie to have been upon that day in Topeka, and therefore could not have been at Coffeyville ; that he possessed this information, essential to the Gov- ernor and those accused with him; that he did not furnish, or offer to fur- nish, his affidavit to Greer for publication, stating his knowledge concerning Henrie; that he was not requested by Henrie to make a statement that he (Henrie) was in Topeka at the time stated; that it did not occur to this zeal- ous, conscientious and faithful executive clerk (and political prostitute) that j was due his benefactor, as an act of duty and gratitude, to relate the sim- ple God’s truth, and thereby allay the anxiety of the Governor and the solici- tude of his friends, are irreconcilable with the truthfulness of the story he now relates. A fair man, a decent man, an honest man, a truthful and conscientious man, would not have so delayed, but would have promptly stepped forward, told and offered to verify the truth, as he then knew it. His failure in that behalf gives the lie to his evidence given to the committee and is “confirma- tion strong as Holy Writ” of the truth of the affidavit of Edwin French, at p. 178, who is the father of Lucy Barlow, lived with her in October, 1888, and relates circumstances which would attract attention and stamp themselves upon the memory. He knew Henrie was away from home; saw him with his grip when he returned; told him “that was a nice time of night to come slip- ping home.” Henrie made no reply, but passed on upstairs and remained at home all the next day. When the Kansas City Times charged the responsi- bility of the explosion upon Henrie, French, with that paper, called Henrie’s attention to the charge. During the second day after his return, Henrie sent a request to Mr. French, by Mrs. Barlow, not to mention his being at home. Henrie received from some quarter a suit of clothes, and in speaking of them to Mr. French said: “I am not satisfied with a suit of clothes; I will have the position promised me in the Labor Bureau, or I will raise hell.” This affi- davit is natural; it is reasonable in its recitals, has upon its face the impress of truth, is consistent with established facts of the case, is in harmony with the evidence of Mr. Upham, Mr. Waldrop, and Hutchins’ letter to Greer, is in full keeping with the infamous purpose of the plotters and the confirmed -villainy of Henrie, but it does not accord with the sworn statements of 176 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. McCray. I do not say evidence, for the reason that evidence is that which makes clear the truth of the matter in dispute; it persuades the mind and convinces the judgment; while McCray’s statements, sworn or unsworn, ef- fect no such results. His manner while telling his story, his evasive and equivocal replies, his manifest unwillingness to tell the truth, his persistent effort to suggest matters not inquired after, his confessed gross neglect of duty, his failing to furnish proof of important matters which he now pre- tends to have fully known, present him in the light of a pompous, egotistic, arrogant, self-sufficient, ungrateful, hypocritical and colossal liar. Such, in my judgment, is his real character. His pretended knowledge of Henrie upon October 18th is an afterthought. When the affidavits of Henrie, Cummings and Barlow were criticised and analyzed, they proved so diaphanous and gauzy that they needed support and corroboration. Being unable to find it elsewhere, this ever-vigilant executive clerk proclaims his willingness, in the then emergency, to rescue and save those who were imperiled, and, after having been talked to and groomed for the occasion, comes forward and endeavors, as best he can, to save the sinking ship, and, in his way, tells a story barren of truth, false upon its face, and not believed by one who heard it. Another thing to be noticed will be found at page 96. On October 25, 1888, Hutchins wrote Greer: “I return the original of the Vidette expose to you, so that you may convince the skeptical in your county, and publish to the world that you have found another, and can dis- play absolute proof to the doubting ones. It would be well, after election, to send it to the State Historical Society, perhaps. Give them the d 1 and pray that the skunk that sent the bomb may be caught.” In this letter Hutchins advises Greer to misrepresent and falsify the truth, and declares that he sends a document to enable him to impose upon the credulity of the public; he then suggests the propriety of storing, among the archives of the State, for future observance, the tangible proof of his perfidy and of their hypocrisy. The hallowed feature of this epistle from Bion to Edward is, the manifesta- tion on the part of Hutchins of resignation to and faith in Providence, when he admonishes his brother Greer to give their opponents the devil, and at the same time to invoke the aid of Heaven; thus,' give them hell, and pray. This letter speaks the language and breathes the odor of insincerity, hypocrisy, falsehood, treachery, and blasphemy; it conclusively proves its writer capable of engaging in any undertaking to accomplish which such traits of character need to be exercised. Mrs. Lease, intuitively, or otherwise, must have had a just appreciation of Bion S. Hutchins’s religious make-up, when, in speaking of him and his conduct, she said she had not applied to the man, or his de- portment, the property or qualification “moral.” It is, I suppose, a blessing WEBB'S LETTER. 177 that we do not “see ourselves as others see us.” From the evidence herein recited and referred to, one must be persuaded that political methods in Kan- sas have not been characterized by open, frank and candid intercourse with the masses, upon the part of those who inaugurate, manage and direct the means employed to secure triumphs for the grand old party; nor are bold, brave men selected, universally, for positions of honor and responsibility. Those of us who believe our Government was established for, and, when right- fully administered, will defend and protect the whole people; that it is the duty of each generation to transmit it to its successor, changed and modified only as is required to adapt it to their needs and conditions; that the con- stantly-increasing intelligence of the people, in the light of the recorded ex- perience of former generations will enable, and should prompt, each to so reform and modify it, that it may hand it over in a condition better than that in which it received it. Governments do not, in their organic laws, provide for their destruction or overthrow ; each anticipates and contemplates its perpetuation, and does provide for such changes as future necessities shall require, to the end that it may the better assist and protect its citizens ; hence, each generation is obligated to its successors for all time, and can only dis- charge that obligation by pursuing the right as God enables it to behold and understand it. The outspoken sentiment of intelligent masses everywhere is condemnatory of a resort to cunning devices, deeds of daring and the use of dangerous instrumentalities for the purpose of controlling civil affairs in which they are interested. Such practices by those seeking positions, and helping to confer the same, destroys confidence and respect, generates dis- trust and want of respect for those who sit in high places. The conduct and associations of a candidate for Governor should be such that there will be no base upon which to rest a charge of complicity and participancy on his part in disreputable and unsavory practices, and above all , the actions of the Gov- ernor should not be such as to confirm the truth of charges implicating him, concerning which, before his election, some doubt may have existed. For twenty years I have known Lyman U. Humphrey; he is not a bad man or citizen; as such he would not engage in disreputable or criminal practices. He is both ambitious and weak; his native timidity would cause him to yield readily to others in sympathy with him; his non-combative make-up would incline him to silence when his friends and supporters were prosecuting plans which, at heart, he did not approve; and when after such means were used in his behalf he found himself, because thereof, installed in office and clothed with power, his moral cowardice would induce him to do things which he hoped would withhold from the public a knowledge of the means by which he was elevated. It was these influences which operated upon and led him to be- lieve ll we had to do it .” Ed. Greer, reckless, indiscreet, and insane partisan, 178 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Henry Booth, a large-brained, subtle, deep-minded man, Bion S. Hutchins, with no conscience, but a cheek of rat-trap steel, were a combination which the Governor could not resist. The first suggesting an end desired, tfie sec- ond, means for its accomplishment, the third, undertaking to provide and furnish the agents to apply them. Greer says, We must get rid of the Vin- cents and their paper. Booth replies, You have been denouncing. them as anarchists; just get some desperate character to send to one of them a hellish machine in the nature of a dynamite bomb. You will be able to know when it will reach its destination, and can intercept it at the opportnne moment; do this, and an exasperated and infuriated populace will do the rest. Hutchins says, I know the man; Henrie will rejoice at the opportunity. I will stand sponsor for him. It is not strange that charges imputing criminal misconduct to men of that character shall awaken doubts; that if for a long time they remain un- answered they are believed. We are judged by the known character of our associates; by our fruits we are known. One of true moral courage, in- stead of securing position to Henrie, would have said: “Mr. Hutchins, you need not hope or importune me to betray an honest people, or violate sacred trusts with which I am charged. I cannot ignore the wishes and interests of those who have made me what I am, and placed me in position where, by proper conduct, I can make of myself what in right I should be. If you were so unwise or base as to employ criminal means, hoping thereby to advance my political interests, I do not approve thereof, and I will not reward those aiding you therein. It is better, infinitely better, that I retire from office at the close of one term, and carry with me in retirement a good opinion of my- self, upheld and sustained by a consciousness of having preserved my integ- rity, than that I shall sanction crime, reward infamy, and by repetition of similar practices, be continued in power. It was the farmer Ashland who said, “It is better to be right than to be President.” God designed this glori- ous commonwealth, this vast empire, the State of our adoption, with its fer- tile soil and salubrious climate, to be converted into happy homes for millions of prosperous, contented American citizens, from whose homely huts and palatial structures curling smokes should arise like incense in the morning; where, in the years to come, voices of happy children will resound along ten thousand valleys at the summer day’s decline; where order, peace and quiet shall prevail — religious liberty be exercised without restraint; where each will be permitted to worship our common Father in harmony with his concep- tions of duty and of right. Let us hope the present order may soon subside, and in its stead sober judgment, dictated by pure motives, guided by an en- larged sense of duty, will advise and direct the affairs of state; that the public welfare and its promotion will be universally regarded as the great disidera- SOME INSIDE HISTORY. 179 turn; that by united effort and common consent individual interest will be de- clared inferior, and made to give place to the public good. When this rule shall be adopted and followed, fraud, deceit, hypocrisy and treachery will be unknown in high places, for honesty, candor, sincerity and fidelity will have resumed their positions. Then will the people rejoice, and the nation be ex- alted; then will the favor and peace of God rest upon and overspread all. To secure this end, an earnest, united effort will be required; its accomplishment, so much to fie desired, can only thus be attained. Let us hope for its consum- mation. , “Hope whispers rest to weary men, Who long for joy and peace; It mentions, softly, betfer times, When hellish methods cease.” H. G. Webb. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II. Since the above was written and most of it in type, something further has come to our knowledge, and we avail ourselves of the privilege an appendix affords. On pages 622, 623, of the record, Senator Kimball lays great stress upon the peculiar fitness of Henrie for the office of clerk in the Labor Bureau, alleging that he was a member of the K. of L., the Typographical Union, and American Federation of Labor. There is nothing in the evidence to warrant the assertion that he belonged to the latter organization at all, he was ex- pelled from the K. of L., and we now subjoin some information to show how he was regarded in the Typographical Union. About the “honorary” certificate of membership in the Typographical Union: The membership of a trade-union is composed of men (and sometimes women) actually engaged in some one trade as employes, working for daily, weekly, or monthly wages, under the direction of an employer or proprietor. The prime object of a trade-union is to maintain as high a rate of wages and as high a standard of general conditions of employment for its members as is possible. Therefore, employers, proprietors, and non-wage-earners in that particular trade, are universally denied “active” membership, because their interests in that direction are not considered parallel with those of the wage- earner. In the Typographical Union “honorary” membership is regulated entirely by local laws, some unions conferring the title upon philanthropic persons outside the trade as well as upon ex- “active” members, while other unions refuse to confer the title at all except to persons who have at some previous time taken the usual obligation as “active” members, and are about to 180 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. withdraw from active service in the printing trade as journeyman workmen. The latter is the rule in the Topeka Typographical Union. Their “honor- ary” certificate indicates that the holder was, at some previous time, an “ac- tive” member of the union, i. e., a journeyman printer, working at the trade in Topeka, and a member of the Topeka Typographical Union; that he had quit the printing trade and engaged in some other vocation; and that at the time of quitting the printing trade and engaging in some other vocation he was “square” with the union in a financial way — did not owe any back dues, fines, or assessments. The “honorary” certificates issued by a local typo- graphical union are of no force or effect outside the jurisdiction of the local unions issuing them, and they may be revoked at any time the local union sees fit to do so. There is also an “International Traveling Card” issued to members of the craft when passing out of the jurisdiction of one union into that of another, or when quitting the trade to engage in some other vocation. The “Interna- tional Card” is good anywhere in the United States or Canada, and secures to the holder admission to union meetings, general recognition among union men, and employment. Upon quitting the printing trade to accept a position in the Labor Bureau, Henrie, having paid all dues, fines and assessments to date, was entitled to either an “International Traveling Card” or an “Honorary Certificate of Membership,” whichever he desired, provided the union had no objection to issuing one or the other. The facts are, Henrie desired to carry a “Working Card,” and thus retain his “active” membership in the union, even after quitting the trade, because that would give him opportunities to take part in the meetings and vote. This the union objected to. The next most desirable thing for him was an “Inter- national Traveling Card,” because that would give him entree to Typographical Unions anywhere in Kansas, or in the United States, and such a card might be deposited at any time and secure to the bearer the right to participate in im- portant meetings, and vote at important elections. This the union also objected to, on the grounds — as expressed by numerous members — that Henrie’s general reputation for unscrupulousness, and his ever readiness to lend himself to low-down political jobbers, would undoubtedly prompt him to prostitute his card and its privileges, if necessary to gain his own diabol- ical ends. Having paid up all dues to date, the union could not refuse to give him a receipted bill, and the only thing left was to issue to him an “Honorary Cer- tificate,” because that was a form of certificate wholly under the control of the local union, not good outside its jurisdiction, and no other card or certificate could ever be secured by Henrie, except upon surrender of the “Honorary SOME INSIDE HISTORY. 181 Certificate” and permission of the Topeka Typographical Union. Therefore, at a regular meeting of the Topeka Typographical Union, by a unanimous vote, and that over Henrie’s protest, an “ Honorary Certificate of Member- ship” was issued to him, that being deemed the safest form to confer upon people of his character. This, it will be seen, was the simplest way to get rid both of his presence and his influence in any similar union — a practical “kick out of the union” by polite methods instead of with a fight. They “Had to” Take Him and They “Have to” Keep Him. — In Octo- ber or November, 1889, the Labor Commissioner made complaint to several trade-unionists in Topeka that the officers and members of various trade-unions in and around the city were very reticent about giv- ing the bureau information regard- ing wages, conditions of labor, or statistics. The matter was brought up in a subsequent meeting of the Trades Assembly and a special committe of five, each member representing a different trade, was appointed to call on Commissioner Betton, explain to him why the trade-unions were out of sympa- thy with the bureau, and also offer some suggestions as to how the lack of sympathy might be reme- died. That committee had a con- ference with the commissioner and told him the trade-unions were in- different about giving information to the bureau because its agents, sent out to collect information and data (Cougher and Henrie), were in such disrepute among honest workingmen that the latter did not care to associate with them, even to the extent of furnishing statistics for the bureau. This committee then suggested some changes in blank forms used by the bureau, and promised the commissioner that if future investigations would be made along certain lines, the trade-unionists would in all probability render him more assistance. No change, however, was made in the personnel of the bureau, but the com- 182 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. missioner did endeavor to so detail Cougher and Henrie that their work might be among such people as knew the least about them. July 3, 1890, a convention of trade-unionists, 49 in number, and represent- ing 15 distinct trades, convened in Topeka for the purpose of organizing a State Federation of Labor, and accomplished their object. Henrie was pres- ent at the opening of that convention, and made himself conspicuous in endeavors to so shape the course of the convention in its attitude towards the Labor Bureau, that an indorsement of it might be made use of by the “State-House gang” as an indirect indorsement of the State administration by organized labor. Henrie prepared a resolution, very profuse in compli- ments to the bureau and its commissioner, and got it before the committee on resolutions, hoping to secure favorable action on it, thus giving him a chance to go back to his chief and say: “See how solid I am with the hoys — I got this through for you.” At the afternoon session the convention decided to exclude all persons from the hall except duly-accredited delegates, and thus Henrie was shut out. His resolution was not reported at all by the committee, but in its stead there was presented one denouncing the bureau, its chief, and especially its two subor- dinates, Cougher and Henrie. This resolution provoked some discussion, and, upon the counsel of some of the more conservative delegates, it was so amended as to “request” the Governor to give the Federation an audience when the time came to make new appointments in the Labor Bureau, thus signifying their dissatisfaction with the bureau as it was then constituted and conducted; and so the resolution passed. (See p. 10, printed proceedings of the convention.) At the evening session of the convention Henrie applied for admission on the ground that he was a trade-unionist, but was informed by the doorkeeper (or sergeant-at-arms) that the resolution excluding all but delegates was still in force, and he could not get in. About half an hour later the doorkeeper reported to the presiding officer that “that man Henrie was listening on the outside of the door,” whereupon the doorkeeper was directed to remove Mr. Henrie entirely from the approaches to the hall. The door- keeper did as directed, but not without some peremptory orders and harsh words, (pretty strong evidence that he was not popular with the “boys.”) Immediately following this convention, Betton, recognizing that something must be done, concluded to remove Cougher, and sometime between the 1st and 15th of July promised a printer by the name of White a position in the Bureau. The appointment of White, or the promise to appoint him, was made entirely through political influence and without the knowledge of any person connected with the State Federation. The indorsement of trade-union- ists was not asked for, though Betton afterwards said he supposed White’s SOME INSIDE HISTORY . 183 appointment would be satisfactory to trade-union people because he was a member of Topeka Typographical Union at the time of his appointment. There is no force, however, in such a statement, because Henrie was a mem- ber of the printer’s union, and the Knights of Labor, too, when appointed, and Cougher was also a member of the plasterers’ union and Knights of Labor when appointed, but their appointments were not made on the recommenda- tion of those societies. Betton’s action in removing Cougher, however, was vetoed, until after elec - tion , and the promise to White was kept a secret until about the latter part of September or first of October. When the promise to appoint White reached the ears of some of the trade-union people and the officers of the State Fed- eration, Betton was informed that if Henrie was going to be promoted from the $800 position to the $1,000 one, there would be a “kick” made, not be- cause the trade-unionists loved White more, or wanted him to have the job, but because they despised Henrie, and felt that his promotion, in the face of previous protests, would be an insult. Just after election Cougher was dismissed, Henrie promoted, and White appointed to the vacancy. It soon became evident to the officers of the Federation and other trade-unionists that some new plan must be devised to rid the Labor Bureau of its disreputable attaches. The second convention of the Federation was called for February 16th, (about the middle of the leg- islative session,) and just prior to the time when the Governor would make a new appointment to the office of Labor Commissioner. Betton was desirous of reappointment, and having seen a display of the temper of the trade- unionists in Henrie’s case, was equally desirous to get solid with the boys. It seemed to be the opinion of the “boys ’’—expressed among themselves — that Betton would have dropped Henrie if he could . The fact is, he (Bet- ton) told an old resident of the city (who is now in business in Topeka) and several others that he had to take Henrie into the bureau , and it is presumed that the same power that put Henrie into the bureau also promoted him to Cougher’s place. When Humphrey was inaugurated it was arranged between Booth, Hutch- ins, Cougher, Henrie, and the Governor, that Cougher was to be appointed Labor Commissioner in Betton’s stead, and Henrie was to get the $1,000 clerk- ship under Cougher. When that scheme got out, Buchan jumped to the res- cue of his henchman (Betton), denounced Cougher very bitterly, and served notice on Humphrey that if Betton was not given the place again there would be war between him and Humphrey. A compromise was then fixed up, to the end that Betton was to be reappointed, Cougher was to retain the $1,000 clerkship, and an $800 job was to be “worked” for Henrie. Betton here dis- played his subserviency by taking in the two fellows who had been trying to 184 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. “do” him. Now the matters jnst stated, together with a good deal more, came to the knowledge of the Federation officers and a few other trade-unionists be- tween the 1st of July, 1890, and the 1st of February, 1891, and Betton was ap- proached with the proposition that the unions would help him unload Henrie if he would let the Federation select a man for the place. This he agreed to, provided , it was satisfactory to the Governor! It was suggested that the right to select his clerks did not belong to the Governor; that if they were hon- orable citizens and competent clerks, the Governor could not properly object. Betton agreed with the suggestion, but said he would have to see the Governor first. Shortly after this Betton was seen again, and this proposition was made to him: “Will you agree to appoint, in Henrie’s stead, one of three persons to be named by the State Federation at its forthcoming convention, if the Federa- tion will indorse you to the Governor for reappointment?” He said he would have to first confer with the Governor , and thereupon invited the president of the Federation to accompany him to the Governor’s office. At the conference with the Governor the above proposition was repeated, and the Governor, in- timating that he was desirous of being on friendly terms with the trade-union people, agreed to protect Betton in his appointment, if one of the three men were appointed. Having secured this promise from the Governor, in the presence of the president of the Federation, Betton thereupon agreed to re- lieve Henrie at the expiration of his (Betton’s) term and appoint one of three persons to be selected by the Federation, provided the Federation would in- dorse him for reappointment. A conference was also held with Buchan, and he, too, pledged his protection to Betton’s appointments, as the Governor had done. Now, let us go back a little ways. During the latter months of 1890, the clerks and salesmen of Topeka organized a union, and by some hook or crook Henrie obtained membership therein. It was necesssary, in his business, to belong to something, and since he had been expelled by the Knights of La- bor, retired by the printers’ union, (and perhaps refused admission by others,) he of course sought membership in the newest thing that came along. As soon as the clerks were properly organized, they were solicited to send dele- gates to the Trades Assembly — a sort of central union or council, represent- ing the various unions in Topeka. This was an important matter for a new union, and with his usual sleekness Henrie got himself elected as one of the delegates. At the next meeting of the Trades Assembly, when the clerks’ dele- gates’ credentials were presented, Henrie’s certificate was absolutely rejected, and to get three delegates in the assembly, the clerks had to elect an- other in Henrie’s stead — one not so obnoxious to honest workingmen. Dur- ing the mouth of January the various unions elected delegates to the February SOME INSIDE HISTORY. 185 convention of the Federation, among others the Clerks’ and Salesmen’s Union. By a little wire-pulling Henrie succeded in getting elected as a delegate from the Clerks’ Union to the Federation convention. When this fact became known among the other trade unions a general “kick” was made and the clerks were notified (not officially, but by numerous individuals) that Henrie’s credentials would not be honored , and possibly the Clerks’ Union might be barred out of the convention entirely. It was suggested to them that they revoke Henrie’s credentials and elect some other in his stead. They concluded to do so, but Henrie protested, declaring that he would “fight it through.” Immediately following this came the announcement that the Legislature proposed to inves- tigate the Coffeyville dynamite matter, and Henrie concluded he had better not have two fights on hand at once, so “resigned” (by request) as a delegate from the Clerks’ Union to the Federation. The Federation finally convened on February 16th. On the afternoon of the 17th the president stated to the convention that important business was yet to come before them, and suggested an executive session. ( See page 12, printed proceedings.) The proposition made to Betton (previously referred to), and his agreement thereto, had been made known during the day to per- haps seven or eight delegates, and it had been agreed to that the matter ought to be kept as quiet as possible. The convention agreed, without a dissenting voice, to the proposition to indorse Betton, provided he would pledge himself to appoint one of three men (to be named) to Henrie’s place. s Three per- sons, Messrs. Brown and Trump, of Topeka, and Mr. McElroy, of Hutchinson, were then selected by written ballot , and a resolution passed requesting Betton to appoint one of the three. A resolution was then passed requesting the Governor to reappoint Betton Labor Commissioner. A special committee of three was then selected by written ballot to take charge of the matter for the Federation after the convention adjourned, and to them were referred both resolutions, with instructions to call on Betton and get him to reaffirm his promise , and if he did so, then to deliver to the Governor the resolution in- dorsing him ( Betton) for reappointment. The committee called on Betton, and he not only reiterated his promise previously made, but went to the Gov- ernor with the committee, and both again pledged their word to carry out the former agreement. Thereupon the resolution indorsing Betton for reap- pointment was sent to the Governor, and the resolution requesting the ap- pointment of one of the three named was sent to Betton. Not long after this, and just at the closing hours of the Legislature, the Governor sent Betton’s name to tt\e Senate for confirmation as Labor Com- missioner for two more years, and the Senate confirmed the appointment. In the meantime, the Coffeyville investigation had been in progress, and the evidence taken therein had so thoroughly convicted Henrie of all he had been 186 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. charged with, that Betton actually came to the conclusion Henrie would have to be discharged anyhow, but, to “let the crowd down easy,” he proposed to the Federation committee that the appointment of a person in his stead be deferred a little while. Trusting in Betton’s honor, the committee acquiesced. A couple of months passed by, and Betton notified Henrie he must look for another job. Henrie objected to this, and set to work “pulling the strings” to retain his place. The Federation committee became impatient, and de- manded the fulfillment of the promise. Betton then proposed that the change be deferred until July 1, as that was the end of the fiscal year, and really the close of the term for which Henrie had been appointed. By-the-way, we might remark here that Henrie was appointed in March, 1889, and although the additional appropriation made by the Legislature that winter, out of which Henrie was to be paid, was noft available for that purpose until July 1, it has not yet been explained where the money came from that Henrie received dur- ing the first four months he was employed in the bureau. The State Audi- tor’s printed report, however, does show that Betton drew out of the State Treasury, for the month of July, 1889 — the first month of the fiscal year — $458 for clerk hire, etc., exclusive of his own salary. (Public Documents, 1889- 1890, Yol. I, p. 277.) Perhaps a parallel for this kind of financiering can be found in the methods he employed to liquidate the $50 assessment made on Cougher by the Republican State Central Committee last fall. But to resume. Betton’s proposition to postpone the change until July 1st was explained to be for the reason that “if Henrie was discharged right away after the adjournment of the Legislature, the Alliance people would say they had to do it,” and of course the bosses could not stand that; besides, he said, “it had been decided that another job must be found for Henrie before he was discharged from the Labor Bureau.” In the meantime Henrie called in the influence of his associates in the campaign of 1888, and, from what has since transpired, it is evident that the fiat went forth that the Governor and Betton must repudiate their promise to the trades-union people. No individual or corporation has yet been found willing to take Henrie off their hands, so he still remains in the “service of the State,” in direct opposition to the repeat- edly-expressed desires of the workmen citizens of the commonwealth — the very class for whose benefit the Labor Bureau was originally organized. Verily, it is evident they had to take him; and now they seem to be main- taining the bureau for his benefit. Why? CHAPTER III IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE THEODOSIUS BOTKIN— TRIAL BEFORE THE STATE SENATE. Members of the Senate of 1891, Constituting the Court of Impeachment for the Trial of Theodosius Botkin, Judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 ! 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Name. Age . ... Post office. County. ' John Schilling 54 Hiawatha Brown Henry Elliston 39 Atchison Atchison Kd . Carrol 1 Leaven wort h . . Leavenworth W. J. Buchan 48 Kansas City, Kas Wyandotte T. M. Carroll 46 Paola Miami 1 Joel Moody 56 Mound City Linn W.W. Martin 51 Fort Scott Bourbon M. C. Kelley 45 Mulberry Grove Crawford W. S. Norton 46 Scammon ville Cherokee C. H. Kimball 44 Parsons Labette D. McTasrgart 50 Liberty Montgomery S. S. Kirkpatrick 44 Fredonia Wilson 0. S. Woodward 55 Neosho Falls Woodson R. W. M. Roe 42 Grenola Elk J. L. Senior 36 Waverly Coffey John C. Rankin 40 Quenemo Osage W. C. Howard 49 Bald wi n Douglas T. A. Osborn 54 Topeka Shawnee C. F. Johnson 34 Oskaloosa Jefferson John K. Wright 56 Junction City Geary R M. Emery 36 Seneca Nemaha E. A. Berry 46 Marysville Marshall F. P. Harkness 35 Clay Center Clay H. E. Richter 44 Council Grove Morris Edwin Tucker 53 Eureka Green wood 1 T. B. Murdock 45 El Dorado Butler L. P. King 41 Tannehill Cowley J. W. Forney 50 Belle Plaine Sumner ^ (). H. Bentley 38 Wichita Sedgwick H. B. Kelly 48 McPherson... McPherson J. G. Mohler 47 Salina Saline Sidney C. Wheeler 45 Concordia Cloud J. H. Mecbem 31 Mankat o Jewell F. M. Lockard 35 Norton Norton R. R. Havs 45 Osborne Osborne S. J. Smith 55 Lyon a. Rice F. E. Gillett 43 Kingman Kingman Chester I. Long 30 Medicine Lodge ...T Barber J.W. Pai-h 45 Lamed Pawnee Hill P. Wilson * 50 Hays City Ellis Politics. Republican. Republican. Democrat. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Alliance. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. Republican. 'Senator Wilson, of the Fortieth District, resigned his seat before the Senate met to try the impeachment, leaving but 39 Senators to constitute the court. ( 187 ) 188 POPULIST BAND-POOK. President President pro tem Secretary Reading Clerk. Record Clerk Journal Clerk Sergeant-at-Arms Stenographer OFFICERS OF THE COURT: A. J. Felt, Lieutenant Governor , Seneca. F. P. Harkness, Senator 23d District, Clay Center. A. G. Stacey, Topeka. John Q. Royce, Smith Center. J. J. Maxwell, Kansas City. T. J. Jackson, Newton. L. C. Smith, Smith Center. R. A. Henderson, Topeka. A most remarkable trial took place in April and May, 1891, before the Sen- ate of the State of Kansas, sitting as a court of impeachment. A judge of the State district court, charged with crimes enough to damn him to eternal infamy, was tried and acquitted. If he was innocent, his acquittal was right. But he was not innocent — he was guilty, and was proven guilty beyond a pos- sibility of doubt. Then why was he not convicted? Simply because he was a Republican, and the Senate which tried him was Republican. It was the common boast of many of the Senators, in advance of the trial and during the trial, that no Republican office-holder should be convicted and removed from office by a Republican Senate. That the reader may know and remem- ber the Senators who composed the impeachment court, a list copied from the official record of the trial is given on a preceding page, showing the dis- trict, residence, and politics of each Senator. Below we give the names of the Board of Managers representing the House of Representatives, and also a list of the counsel engaged in the trial, namely: On the 27th of February, 1891, the House of Representatives appointed the the following members of the House as a Board of Managers to conduct the impeachment of Judge Botkin, namely: A. N. Whittington, chairman, Repre- sentative 99th District, Lincoln, Lincoln county; W. H. Mitchell, Representa- tive 93d District, Huntsville, Reno county; Geo. H. Coulson, Representative 88th District, Anthony, Harper county; William C. Webb, Representative 41st District, Topeka, Shawnee county; and J. B. Coons, Representative 17th Dis- trict, Spring HilJ, Miami county. The counsel for the State were: John N. Ives, Attorney General, Topeka; Geo. L. Douglass, of Wichita: and A. M. Mackey, of Topeka. The last two were appointed by the Board of Managers. The counsel for respondent were: S. B. Bradford, of Topeka, Shawnee county; Thomas S. Haun, of Pittsburg, Crawford county; Lewis Hanback, of Osborne, Osborne county; J. H.*Pitzer, of Arkalon, Seward county; William Easton Hutchison, of Ulysses, Grant county; and Wm. P. Hackney, of Win- field, Cowley county. THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 189 The Political Situation. — The question of party politics — the political views or faith of the triers, or of any person placed upon trial — ought not to affect a question so momentous as the fitness of a man to fill a great judicial office; but it not only did affect it in this case, but actually controlled it, so far as the Senate was concerned. And as that body made party politics the criterion of guilt, we propose to show, at the very outset, that the Senate mis- represented and wickedly disregarded the political sentiment of the people of Kansas. When the Legislature of 1889 met in January of that year, every State offi- cer was a Republican, elected at the general election of 1888, by pluralities over the Democratic candidates varying from 83,909 for Geo. W. Winans for State Superintendent of Schools, down to 73,361 for Lyman U. Humphrey for Governor; and by majorities over all other candidates ranging from 35,- 921 for Mr. Winans, down to 31,080 for Governor Humphrey. The Legisla- ture of 1889, chosen at the general election of 1888, stood thus: In the Senate, 39 Republicans and 1 Democrat; in the House, 121 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 1 Union Labor. The State was represented in Congress by 2 Republican United States Senators, and 7 Republican Representatives. At the general election held in November, 1888, the State had given Benjamin Harrison, Re- publican, for President, a plurality of 80,159, and a majority over all of 35,542. At that time there was no political organization in the State known as the People’s Party. Notice the changes wrought in two years. At the election held in Novem- ber, 1890^ the Republican majorities had disappeared. In 1888, Governor Humphrey’s total vote was 180,841; in 1890 it was only 115,025 — a loss of 65,816. His plurality of 73,361 in 1888, had been reduced to 8,053 — a loss of 65,308. His majority of 31,080 in 1888 had disappeared, and there was a ma- jority of the popular vote against him of 64,538. The political complexion of the House of Representatives had also changed. Instead of 121 Republi- cans, as in 1889, the House of Representatives of 1891 contained only 25 Re- publicans. Instead .of an “opposition” of four only, there were, in 1891, 7 Democrats and 93 People’s Paity members. One vacancy had occurred in the Senate in a district which, in 1888, had elected a Republican by 1,163 majority, and that vacancy had been filled by a People’s Party Senator, chosen in 1890 by a majority of 1169* Of the seven Congressmen elected in November, 1890, the Republicans elected only two, and the People’s Party elected five. Instead of a Republican majority of 155 on joint ballot, as in the Legislature in 1889, the Legislature of 1891 had a People’s Party majority of 31, and elected a People’s Party man for United States Senator, and a People’s Party man for State Printer. 190 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . The following figures show the actual result of the State election held in No- vember, 1890, and are worth remembering: Candidates. Plurality. Actual majority against. Humphrey, Governor 8,053 4,915 5,036 8,443 5,430 7,139- 64,538 53,409 52,155 49,780 51,676 49,701 Felt, Lieutenant Governor Higgins, Secretary of State Hovey, Auditor of State Stover, Treasurer of State Winans, Supt. of Public Instruction . For Attorney General, L. B. Kellogg, Republican, received 122,752 votes — being 7,727 more than Mr. Humphrey received for Governor, 2,284 more than Mr. Felt received for Lieutenant Governor, 1,783 more than Mr. Higgins re- ceived for Secretary of State, 1,504 more than Mr. Hovey received for State Auditor, 1,435 more than Mr. Stover received for State Treasurer, and 591 more than Mr. Winans received for State Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion, and yet Mr. Kelloggwas defeated. His opponent, John N. Ives, received 170,665 votes, being the united vote of the People’s Party and Democrats, and was elected — his majority over Mr. Kellogg and “scattering” being 47,708. ^ The following figures are equally instructive respecting the vote in the sev- eral Congressional Districts, at the November election, 1890: District. Total Republican vote. * Total opposi- tion. First district 14,630 17,713 20,478; 22,609 Second district Third district 19,061 . 23,492 24,996 Fourth district 19,994 13,998 12,105 Fifth district 22,821 Sixth district 21,049 Seventh district. 25,181 32,612 Totals in the State 122,682 168,057 These figures show an opposition majority in the State of 45,375 on the congressional vote; but the Republicans elected their candidates, in the First district by a plurality of 1,380, and in ’the Second district by a plurality of 5,440. And here is still another showing of the Waterloo which overtook the* “grand old party” in 1890. As already stated, the Senate chosen in 1888 consisted of 39 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Take the vote cast for Mr. Ives for Attorney General in 1890 as representing the opposition to Repub- lican rule and mismanagement, and the vote for Mr. Kellogg as representing THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 191 the Republican strength, and it will be seen that only four of the 39 districts gave Republican majorities in 1890, and these were greatly reduced — thus: DISTRICT. S&n+Twv 1888. 1890. Rep. vote. Oppo- sition. Rep. moj. Rep. vote. Oppo- sition. Rep. maj. First district 4,260 2,986 3,215 7,726 3,763 2,203 2,071 3,361 497 783 1,184 4,365 3,960 2,536 2,671 5,132 3,601 2,483 2,362 4,968 359 53 309 164 Thirteenth district ..froac/eu Seventeenth district '.A6P.idHeKrA+... Eighteenth district jPj^L*crr*K~... And in 35 Senatorial Districts there were unquestioned majorities for the People’s Party in 1890, thus: DISTRICTS. 1888. - 1890. Rep. vote. Oppo- sition. Rep. moj. Rep. vote. Oppo- sition. Opp. m,nj . Second district 3,009 2,919 90 2,385 2,926 541 Fourth district . 5,101 4,532 569 3,203 4,008 805 Fifth district Jfc.fa&7 J. M. Myers. Alfred Harper. J. C. McClay. A. W. Welch. W. F. Perkins. Wesley Wirt. E. Holloway. Job Troggatte. J. C. Genoud. Wm. G. Little. Joe P. Jackman. Isaac Reynolds. L. 0. Church. G. G. Clark. T. H. Bottorff. Samuel Church. John W. Whelchel. A. Thieme. Sol. Church. Sam. Montgomery. Hensen Thieme. Norton Hocket. Jacob Liniger. August Thieme. Wesley Hockett. Joseph Neer. Herman Miller. T. E. Hackett. Samuel Campbell. Sam’l Misgon. John Moore. Amos Greathouse. Perry Carpenter. C. H. Boles. Fred. F. Clark. Wm. M. Peck. E. Dudley. F. Plantz. Joel Bennett. L. L. Bannister. W. W. Ramsey. Wm. Hamilton. J. A. Redpath. J. W. Sutton. J. C. Hamilton. A. J. Hopper. J. S. Lock. Geo. Brown. G. J. Ashworth. Thomas W. Campbell. Wm. Lowe. C. H. Deshler. B. F. French. J. D. Guy. A. A. Dunmire. Pierce Trox. Jacob Little. J. D. Bolin. T. T. Smith. Perry Hurtsman. J. D. Matthews. Wm. H. Stoughton. A. C. Morrell. S. H. Marquis. J. W. Williams. C. R. Wright, J.P. C. McShurley. H. Riggle. R. F. Furnas, M.D. R. F. Furnas. 0. P. Bucklin. Wm. Wells. M. 0. Groff. Taylor Fox. I. T. Rhodes. Jno. B. Patrick. J. P. Nugen. E. P. Ludwick. Geo. H. Byers. M. Smith. W. I 5 . McClure. Bert Adams. C. W. Chapman. C. S. Kilgore. E. M. Watson. Petition No. 154, from Seward county, contained the following names of petitioners, all of whom resided in Seward county; those marked with a star (*) were witnesses before the Senate on the impeachment trial: W. E. Ralstin.* C. S. Anderson. Charles Brial. J. F. Van Voorhis.* Alex. Templeton. J. R. Lambert. S. A. Klein.* G. Tillbury. Frank Garinger. A. S. McKitrick. J. J. Lench. M. R. Conrad. A. C. Benedict. W. E. Ross. W. L. Dexter. J. A. L. Williams.* Joseph Waggoner.* Robert Haunum. J. M. Mullet. J. 0. Haunum. Henry Rodabaugh. A. McCoyd. William Tillbury. J. M. Lowder. C. L. Calvert * T. B. Russell. C. W. Moore. H. F. Thompson.* C. H. Rhoades. S. B. Foster. Sam. C. Jones. J. T. Boon. John R. Garinger. Sylvester Barb. W. H. Cooper. W. M. Milner. Chas. C. Yane. A. D. Lamberson. Jas. M. Smith. J. S. Conrad. J. N. Orner. Oliver Bennett. J. M. Singer. C. W. Robinson. G. P. Leighton.* Oscar F. Osten. W. B. Orner. 0. H. Stafford. Lewis P. Garinger. A. T. Shahan. A. L. Davis.* J. R. Mahaffey. F. L. Rhineg. C. P. Juvenal. —12 198 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. A. H. Saunders. Will. R. Smith. M. L. Trout.* H. Glitsch* Rowan Chase. Chas. Thomas. Wm. H. Minton. John Akin. Wm. McKitrick, H. A. Saunders. J. A. Wemple.* N. L. Mathis. H. C. Nelson. G. B. Epps. Zadok Bennett. S. H. Newton. W. L. Robinson Elsie Hedrick. Kinzer Rhewby. Alvin Watson. Henry Thele. Petition No. 155 was signed by the following-named petitioners, all of whom resided in Grant county; those marked with a star (*) were witnesses before the Senate at the trial: C. L. Mann. J. B. Moore.* D. S. Fleming.* R. H. Martin. Geo. W. Dobson. C. A. Moore. Wm. McCall. C. McCall. C. F. Blake. J. F. Rosel. G. A. Pearson. C. H. Lowderman. W. T. Sawyer. Samuel Gilmer. M. S. Burson. C. H. North. W. A. Heston. Wm. Trueblood. Clark Howell. John M. Kell. G. H. Kell. J. D. Taggart. J. H. Hardin. T. S. Neely. S. M. Wood. F. A. Davis. E. C. Westfall. J. N. Elwood. R. H. Elwood. A. F. Kitchen. C. P. Bowers. At a later date, namely, on February 13th, Mr. Jackson, of McPherson county, introduced “House Petition No. 183 — Petition of W. H. Hussey, county clerk, C. W. Brewer, county superintendent, and 65 other legal voters of Haskell county , in the Thirty-second Judicial District, charging Theodosius Botkin, judge of said district, with being incompetent, guilty of oppression in office, a gambler, an habitual drunkard, and corruption in office, and praying for his removal from office.” Said petition contained the following names — those marked R. are Republicans, those marked D. are Democrats, those marked P. P. are People’s Party men, and those marked U. L. belong to the Union Labor party: W. H. Hussey, county clerk, R. C. W. Brewer, county supt., R. H. F. Millikan, register of deeds, R. S. W. Snyder, township trustee, R. W. Y. Marshall, postmaster, R. John J. Miller, editor, R. W. W. Rhinehart, R. N. D. Pierrepont, R. James K. Stanley, R. H. C. Murphy, R. Will. Stanley, R. George S. Wallace, R. J. Jobe, R. S. L. Towell, R. A. Wright, R. S. McNeeley, probate judge, P.P. A. F. Pierce, township trustee, D. R. F. Kells, township trustee, R. S. Rhinehart, merchant, R. A. C. Miller, printer, R. M. O. Powers, book-keeper, R. J. M. Pace, D. Levi Henthorn, D. H. Kite, D. David Rhine, D. James Counsel), D. James H. Moore, D. S. W. Anderson, D. E. G. Webb, D. A. R. Fields, D. Benj. F. Moore, R. W. D. Evans, R. James Armstrong, R. Ab. Shacklett, D. T. Reeves, R. R. L. McConaughy, R. L. D. Meredith, R. F. A. Burkhill, R. C. Imhofif, D. THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 199 H. Cobb, R. Arthur Nofziger, R. S. G. Bishop, R. P. P. Pace, R. W. A. Kells, R. H. W. Day, R. Samuel Loy, R . J. M. Wingar, R. Ed. Russell, R. Janz M. Finder, R. L. P. McNutt, D. E. M. McMahan, D. Chas. Harshman, D. Ed. Yoer, D. C. E. Adrus, D. C. P. Nofziger, D. J. N. Shipley, D. R. Armstrong, D. Frank Payne, D. • J. R. Fields, D. John Anderson, D. Zalmon Fenton, D. W. T. Willett, U.L. Reuben Davis, U.L. C. C. Leedom, R. J. E. Austin, R. L. J. Herser, R. Wm. Seelye, R. Let it be observed, that out of the 67 names on this Haskell county peti- tion 41 are Republicans, of whom six are public officers, and one an editor of a Republican newspaper, while there is only one People’s Party man on the petition. On the Stevens, Seward and Grant county petitions there are not less than two Republicans to one of all other parties. So, instead of the pro- ceedings against Judge Botkin being instituted by the “Alliance,” or People’s Party, they were originated by and among Republicans, and because of his unfitness for the office he held, and not for any political reason. House Proceedings. — The petitions introduced by Mr. Webb having been read, and ordered printed, Mr. Doolittle, of Chase county, introduced the fol- lowing concurrent resolution (see House Journal, p. 814): Be it resolved by the House of Representatives , the Senate concurring, That a special committee of five on the part of the House and three on the part of the Senate be appointed to investigate the charges preferred by J. F. Van Voorhis and others against Theodosius Botkin, judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District, and report by resolution or otherwise as to the truthfulness of said charges, and that said committee have power to examine witnessess and send for persons and papers, and that they report the result of their in- vestigation as early as possible. Resolved further, That said committee be instructed to have served upon Judge Theo. Botkin a copy of said complaint, and that they notify him of the time and place of said investigation. This resolution was a concurrent resolution, and looked to the removal of Judge Botkin by the summary proceeding authorized by section 15 of the judiciary article of our State constitution, which reads as follows: “Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the district courts may be removed from office by resolution of both houses, if two thirds of the mem- bers of each house concur; but no such removal shall be made except upon complaint, the substance of which shall be entered upon the journal, nor until the party charged shall have had notice and opportunity to.be heard.” The complaint against Judge Botkin had been duly made under oath. It had been entered at length upon the journal of the House. Mr. Doolittle’s resolution provided that Judge Botkin be notified of the complaint, and of the time and place when and where he would have opportunity to be heard. Why was not this simple remedy pursued? Why was not Mr. Doolittle’s reso- 200 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. lntion as copied above adopted? The answer will be found in the unwritten history of that day. The official journals of the proceedings of the Legisla- ture do not furnish the reason. But within an hour from the time Mr. Doo- little’s resolution was introduced and read, the House lobby was filled with Senators and their allies, suggesting most impressively, and with a show of great interest, that “Mr. Doolittle’s resolution wouldn't do; that the Senate could not take any action on that resolution, because the Senate would have to sit as a court of impeachment to try Judge Botkin, and, like a jury, the Sen- ate must be impartial.” That this was the position then taken, is admitted by Mr. Hackney, the principal attorney for Judge Botkin, im his argument before the Senate during the trial. Mr. Hackney (Impeachment Trial, page 1289), in arraigning the People’s Party in the House, said: “And before such a House as this, controlled by Sam. Wood and Elder, reek- ing with the infamy piled up by their conduct, these men came and presented their charges against Judge Botkin. ... It was found that a resolution removing Judge Botkin would not do — it was not legal. Then a committee was appointed,” etc. Half a dozen or more Senators, and several employes of the Senate, and some outsiders even, were conspicuously officious in informing members of the House, within two hours after the Doolittle resolution was first read, that “that resolution would not do.” Why was this kind of talk urged upon the House? Because, in addition to the removal by concurrent resolution already mentioned, and which was contemplated by the Doolittle resolution, removal by impeachment and trial is also provided for. Sections 27 and 28, of the legislative article of the State constitution, are as follows: “Sec. 27. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power to im- peach. All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall take an oath to do justice according to the law and the evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- thirds of the Senators elected. “Sec. 28. The Governor and all other officers under this constitution shall be subject to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment in all such cases shall not be extended further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of profit, honor or trust under this consti- tution; but the party, whether acquitted or convicted, shall be liable to indict- ment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.” It is true that when the House proceeds by impeachment, under these pro- visions, the Senate is not called upon to act until the House, as such, adopts articles of impeachment and sends them to the Senate to try; and in such case it is eminently proper that Senators should withhold any opinions until they have heard the case. But there is no greater reason for proceed- ing by impeachment against the judges of our courts than by resolution. The remedies are equally open, and equally adequate. Sometimes, as in Botkin’s case, it would be the speedier, and therefore the better and cheaper remedy THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 201 to proceed by concurrent resolution. So thought Mr. Doolittle. But when a lot of pigmy statesmen, who, had already assumed a superiority which they never possessed, either in virtue of their higher office, or as representatives of the people, on of native ability, and who, finding themselves already con- demned by the people, and likely to be very soon retired to private life, saw an opportunity to sit and exhibit themselves two or three months longer as a “High Court of Impeachment,” they made rapid haste to inform the mem- bers of the House of Representatives that “the Doolittle resolution was wrong,” and would “embarrass the Senate as a court of impeachment,” if it should pass. Members of the House consulted, and very soon took in the sit- uation. They saw that if a “concurrent resolution” was sent to the Senate, that that body would promptly mount its highest stilts and refuse to take ac- tion, alleging that it “would not comport with its dignity as a court of im- peachment,” either to adopt or reject the resolution. But the House believed that some definite action was necessary; so, on the 7th of February (House Jour, page 343, and Impeachment Trial, page 15), Mr. Doolittle called up House concurrent resolution No. 24, and moved to amend the same so as to make it a House resolution, instead of concurrent resolution, and so as to read as follows: Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, That a special committee of five, on the part of the House, be appointed to investigate the charges pre- ferred by J. F. Van Yoorhis and others against Theodosius Botkin, judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District, and report, by resolution or otherwise, as to the truthfulness of said charges; that said committee have the power to examine witnesses, and send for persons and papers, and that they report the result of their investigation as early as possible. Resolved further, That said committee be instructed to have served upon Judge Theo. Botkin a copy of said complaint, and that they notify him of the time and place of said investigation. The amendments were agreed to, and the resolution was then adopted; and subsequently the Speaker appointed the committee provided for. Some changes in the committee were made — two members originally appointed de- clining to serve. The committee, as finally appointed, were Representatives A. N. Whittington, of Lincoln; Francis M. Stahl, of Shawnee; J. B. Coons, of Miami; W. H. Mitchell, of Reno, and Geo. H. Coulson, of Harper. Repobt of Special Committee. — On the 27th of February the special com- mittee appointed to investigate charges against Judge Botkin reported as follows — House Journal, page 728; Impeachment Trial, page 16: To the House of Representatives: The special committee appointed under and by virtue of House resolution, adopted February 7, 1891, to investigate the charges preferred by J. F. Van Yoorhis, H. F. Thompson, C. L. Calvert, S. A. Klein, and W. A. Ralstin, against Theodosius Botkin, judge of the Thirty- second Judicial District, respectfully herewith submit their report. Your committee notified Judge Botkin of the time and place of said investi-. 202 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . gation, and appointed R. A. Henderson their stenographer, and on Tuesday, February 17th, proceeded to examine the witnesses and reduce to writing the testimony taken, which accompanies this report. Twenty-five witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainants. The committee also attach to the testimony an affidavit made by S. N. Wheeler, of Grand Junction, Colorado, formerly a resident of Johnson City, in the Thirty-second Judicial District; also, the affidavits of Frank Hall, A. R. Knapp and Fred. Friar, of Leoti, Wichita county. Respondent furnished the committee with a list of 304 witnesses, which he asked to have subpenaed at the expense of the State, at a cost of twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars. No statement was made to the committee as to what the respondent desired to establish by these witnesses. Inasmuch as only twenty five witnesses had been examined on behalf of the complainants, the committee determined to permit the respondent to have subpenaed, at the expense of the State, thirty witnesses (being a greater number than that allowed the complainants), and Judge Botkin and his attorneys were so in- formed by the committee; but they refused to have any of the witnesses sub- penaed unless they could get all they asked for. No evidence was introduced on behalf of Judge Botkin. The witnesses examined on behalf of complain- ants were lawyers, merchants and professional persons, and city and county officials, from the Thirty-second Judicial District, and impressed the com- mittee with the truthfulness of their testimony. From the evidence taken, the committee unanimously find that the charges made by the complainants against judge Botkin are true. Judge Botkin was appointed judge of the Thirty- second Judicial District in the spring of 1889, and at the general election in the fall of that year was elected for the term of four years, commencing on the second Monday in January, 1890. The evi- dence shows clearly and beyond a doubt, that Judge Botkin is an habitual user of intoxicating liquors to an excess; that ever since his election, up to and including last month, he was repeatedly intoxicated throughout his dis- trict, during the terms of court, and in several instances was so far overcome by this vile habit as to have been intoxicated while on the bench; that he has been guilty of oppressive and malicious abuse of his judicial authority, arbi- trarily imprisoning persons throughout the district without any shadow of law or authority; that he has been guilty of willful and malicious partiality, corruption, misconduct and abuse of authority, in his official capacity, and under color of his office. Your committee deem it but due to the people of the Thirty-second Judicial District, and the good name of the State of Kansas, that this House should take the necessary and proper steps to remove him from office, that the judi- cial ermine may be maintained unsullied in its pristine purity. So believing, your committee have, after a calm, careful and considerate review of ttm testimony, unanimously agreed to recommend to this House the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That Theodosias Botkin, judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District, be im- peached of high misdemeanors in office. Your committee also beg leave to submit the accompanying articles of im- peachment, and recommend their adoption. A. N. Whittington, Fkancis M. Stahl, J. B. Coons, W. H. Mitchell, Geo. H. Coulson, * Committee THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 203 Abtioles of Impeachment.— The articles of impeachment reported by the special committee are very long. They will be found in the House Journal, pages 730 to 740, and in the Impeachment Trial, pages 18 to 28, and again on pages 31 to 42. The resolution reported by the committee — “that Theodo- sius Botkin, judge of the Thirty-second Judical District, be impeached of high misdemeanors in office ” — and the articles of impeachment were adopted, none voting in the negative. (House Jour. p. 740; Impeachment Trial, p. 28.) A Board of Managers was also authorized by the House, and appointed by the Speaker. ( House Jour. pp. 740 and 746; Impeachment Trial, p. 29.) The board thus appointed consisted of Representatives Whittington, of Lincoln, Mitchell, of Reno, Coulson, of Harper, Webb, of Shawnee, and Coons, of Miami. It is not necessary that the articles of impeachment be set forth here in full. What the specific charges in fact were, will plainly appear in the follow- ing pages. There were ten separate articles, with numerous specifications. In the Senate. — The articles of impeachment were duly presented to the Senate on the 3d of March, 1891. (Impeachment Trial, pp. 31 to 42; Senate Jour. pp. 594 to 605.) Thereupon the Senate organized as a court of im- peachment, adopted rules of procedure, and adjourned until April 20th, hav- ing first fixed that day for the commencement of the trial. (Impeachment Trial, pp. 45 to 53.) On the 20th of April the Senate met as a court of impeachment. Of the 39 Senators remaining, (Senator Wilson having resigned since the adjournment in March,) 31 were present. The eight absentees were Senators Buchan, Car- roll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Howard, Kirkpatrick, Martin, Norton, and Woodward. Attorney General Ives, the Board of Managers appointed by the House of Representatives, and Messrs. Geo. L. Douglass, of Wichita, and A. M. Mackey, of Topeka, were present, representing the State. Judge Botkin, the respond- ent, and his counsel, Messrs. S. B. Bradford, of Topeka, Thomas S. Haun, of Pittsburg, Lewis Hanback, of Osborn, John H. Pitzer, of Arkalon, and Wm. E. Hutchison, of Ulysses, were also present. If any act or proceeding on the part of the Board of Managers be material from any political standpoint, it may be stated here, that the two attorneys (Messrs. Douglass and Mackey) employed by the board to assist the Attorney General were Republicans; and it is also a significant fact, that the only law- yer on the Board of Managers was Judge Webb, a Republican, and that to him was committed the management of the case so far as its legal features were under the control of the board. Respecting counsel for Judge Botkin, a most novel feature appears in the record of his trial. The preliminary proceedings show that Judge Botkin was duly notified by the House of the memorials or petitions presented against 204 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. him, and of the appointment of a committee. The House Journal and the report of the committee (already set forth in full on preceding pages of this review), show that Judge Botkin appeared before the House committee in person and by attorneys. We quote from that report as follows: “Respondent furnished the committee with a list of 304 witnesses, which he asked to have subpenaed at the expense of the State, at a cost of twenty- five to thirty thousand dollars. No statement was made to the committee as to what the respondent desired to establish by these witnesses. Inasmuch as only 25 witnesses had been examined on behalf of the complainants, the com- mittee determined to permit the respondent to have subpenaed, at the ex- pense of the State, 30 witnesses, and Judge Botkin and his attorneys were so informed by the committee; but they refused to have any of the witnesses subpenaed unless they could get all they asked for.” The record of the trial, at page 56, shows that Judge Botkin appeared and announced to the Senate, on the 20th of April, that he was there represented by counsel, namely, Messrs. Bradford, Haun, Hanback, Pitzer, and Hutchison. These were the same five attorneys who represented him before the House committee. Yet, on the 21st of April — the day after he had appeared and filed a demurrer to the articles of impeachment (which demurrer is signed by his five attorneys) — Judge Botkin presented to the court a remarkable doc- ument. (Impeachment Trial, pp. 64-67.) This document consists mainly in an arraignment of the House and the House committee for alleged unfair- ness, and is a most lugubrious presentation of his own pecuniary embarrass- ments. He admits that he employed attorneys to appear for him before the House committee, and that he had opportunity to bring 30 witnesses before that committee in his defense. He closes with the following appeal: “Your respondent would represent, . . . that he is absolutely unable to employ counsel, and to pay his own personal expenses and make his de- fense before this honorable high court of impeachment. He therefore asks that this honorable high court of impeachment make to him an allowance for his personal expenses during this trial, and appoint attorneys to conduct his de- fense , and to defray such necessary expenses as in the judgement of this hon- orable high court may seem just and proper.” Practically nothing was done that day except to discuss this peculiar docu- ment submitted by Judge Botkin. The debate was exclusively “senatorial,” none of the counsel on either side having a word to say. The next day (Im- peachment Trial, page 72) Senator Gillett introduced the following preamble and resolution, which were adopted: “Whereas, It has been shown by the respondent, the Hon. Theodosius Bot- kin, that he is without funds for the employment of counsel, and desires to appear before the Senate as a court of impeachment represented by counsel: therefore, be it “ Resolved , That Hon. S. B. Bradford, Hon. Lewis Hanback, T. S. Haun, J. H. Pitzer and W. E. Hutchison be and they are hereby assigned and appointed by THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 205 the Senate as such court, as counsel for the respondent, to appear and defend for him.” Judge Botkin had already appeared by counsel; he had already employed counsel. The Senate had no right, power or authority to appoint any counsel for anyone. It did not and could not bind the State to pay for counsel em- ployed by the respondent. But this singular proceeding suggests two things worth remembering: the ready sympathy and prompt assistance of this Re- publican Senate to a fellow-Republican, and a purpose to give the semblance of authority to enormous claims which those same attorneys will surely pre- sent to the next Legislature for payment. Let the people beware who they send to Topeka to open the doors of the treasury for any such purpose. A Quobum. — Perhaps the question, what constitutes a quorum of the Sen- ate when sitting as a court of impeachment, may not be very material for the purpose of this review of the impeachment trial. But it may be properly stated as throwing some light upon the conduct of the Senate as a body, and of individual Senators, that notwithstanding their over anxiety in February to sit as a “high court,” yet when it came to the discharge of that duty many of them seemed to care very little about the law governing the organization of the Senate, or the merits of the case. Respecting a quorum, there was a diversity of opinion. For legislative purposes, the State constitution (sec. 8, art. 2) fixes a “quorum” as being “a majority” of all the members elect — that is, as the Senate is now constituted, not less than 21 members. For the purpose of removing any judge or State officer by trial and conviction, (on impeachment by the House,) there must be a “concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected.” (Const., art. 2, sec. 27.) So, with a Senate of 40 mem- bers, it requires at least 27 to convict; and less than that number of Senators cannot constitute a quorum when sitting as a court of impeachment. This view of the case was early presented to the Senate. Judge Botkin hav- ing demurred to the articles of impeachment, the question of a quorum be- came at once a most important matter. On the 22d of April (page 73, Impeachment Trial), the question was raised by Attorney General Ives. We quote: The Attokney General : Preliminary to proceeding with the argument of this demurrer, I wish, as the representative of the State, to say, that it occurs to me that it would be better to settle the question of how many members of this Senate shall compose the court. It is important at this time, because, as I regard this demurrer, all the questions involved in this case may be settled upon this demurrer. . . . And I do not feel, as a representative of the State, that it is proper for us to proceed with even a hearing of the argument upon this demurrer, until a call of the Senate is made, and absentees brought in, unless they have been excused. The matter stands before this court now exactly as it would stand upon a plea of guilty. The demurrer confesses every charge made in the articles of impeachment. . . . Supposing, Mr. 206 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. President, that after the argument of this demurrer a vote was taken, and the demurrer not sustained, and that the respondent refused to plead over, but stood upon the demurrer: unless there was a vote of twenty-seven members of this court refusing to sustain that demurrer, how could judgment of any kind be entered upon the proceedings? Where would be the necessity for in- troducing any evidence, and of putting this State to the expense of attempt- ing to prove the charges that stand confessed by this demurrer? . . . Senatob Fobney: I understand that Senator Osborn introduced a resolu- tion to decide that question, and I think with the Attorney General, that it ought to be decided at this time. ... I move you, Mr. President, that we take up this resolution at this time. Senator Forney’s motion was lost — yeas 13, nays 16; absent, 10. At a later day (April 30), upon a roll-call, it appeared that only 25 Senators were pres- ent, of whom only 21 had voted. (Impeachment Trial, pp. 88 and 89.) The following is shown: The Attobney Genebal: Mr. President, I must protest against the quo- rum present. Only 25 Senators are present. It is a very grave question with me whether the State will be justified in going on, and entailing the ex- pense of taking testimony, with a less number of Senators in this court than would be necessary to convict, if there was a unanimous vote. ... I sub- mit, that in fairness to the State, and to the people of the State who have the bills to pay, that this question of a quorum is a serious one. I submit that it would not be fair to the State to proceed with less than a constitutional majority of two-thirds of the members present; . . . and the State has a right to at least have a proper number of the members of the court present that could pass judgment in favor of the State during all of these proceed- ings. After some little discussion, the Senate adjourned. But the question came up again. On Saturday, the 2d of May, there were at roll-call only 18 Senators present. (During the session six more came in, and the journal shows 24 present.) Senator Gillett offered a new rule, to stand as rule 17, as follows: “Rule 17. It shall require the presence of twenty-seven Senators at every sitting for the court to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and no Senator shall be permitted to be absent from the sessions of the court without leave, which must be granted by the court. Absence of a Senator from the sessions of the court without leave shall be deemed a contempt of court, and may be punished by such fine as the court may impose.” . . . After this rule was read, a motion was made to adjourn until Monday. Me. Manageb Webb: I do not rise to discuss this motion. It is not within my province, nor of the Board of Managers to do so; but I wish to say this in the absence of the Attorney General, that he has very frequently expressed his opinions to the Board of Managers, and sometimes here, that it is his de- sire (and I speak for the board, that it is its desire also) that the Senate, dur- ing the hearing of the proceedings in this trial, shall have a constitutional quo- rum, which would enable it to make final judgment satisfactory to itself and to the State. THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 207 The Senate adjourned until Monday, when Senator Gillett’s new rule 17 was taken up. On motion to adopt the rule, the following occurred: Senator Schilling: I am opposed to the rule on general principles; that is all I have to say. Senator Kimball: I cannot see what right this Senate has to adopt a rule which is contrary to the provisions of the constitution. The constitution says that a majority of the members-elect of this Senate shall constitute a quorum; and this rule provides that it shall take twenty-seven. Now I know there is a difference of opinion upon this subject, and I have already said in this Senate what I desire to say, or all that I could say, in discussing this question; and I therefore do not intend to take up the time of the Senate in repeating it. . . . . Senator Gillett: I have canvassed the reasons given by the Senator from Labette, and I had convinced myself of their correctness, and discharged the matter from my mind. Upon a review of the subject, when it was brought up for discussion, it was urged by lawyers in whom I have a great deal of confidence, that where the constitution provides for a certain number neces- sary to convict upon an information, that it impliedly presumes that such a number would listen to the evidence in the case, for the purpose of settling in their minds as to whether or not they ought to convict. I find these rea- sons presented, not only by strong lawyers, but others occupying positions upon the bench. . . . Senator Elliston: Mr. President, I look upon this matter as of vital im- portance. I have listened attentively, with a desire to be convinced, to the Senator from Labette, and given the weight they deserve to the reasons which he urged in support of his position; but the more I consider it, the more thoroughly I am persuaded that they are fallacious. He insists that twenty- one is a quorum for this proceeding, because twenty-one would be a quorum for the transaction of ordinary legislative business; but it seems to me that the reasons at the foundation are entirely different. . . . There is no material matter that we can dispose of except by the vote of twenty-seven members, and it seems to me that a court of less than twenty- seven members is not a court for the transaction of this business. Senator Long: I shall vote against this resolution. ... I am in full accord with the ideas expressed by the Senator from Labette, because I believe they are warranted by the constitution, which provides that the Senate shall not consist of more than forty members, Another provision provides that a majority of the members elected shall constitute a quorum. It is simply a mathematical calculation; and ought this record to show that twenty-one members do not constitute a quorum? . . . Senator Forney: It seems to me, Mr. President, no more reasonable rule has been proposed for the government of this court than the one now under consideration. It seems to me that it would be a strange condition of affairs when a Senator is sworn to discharge the duties of his office as Senator, if there were no means by which his attendance could be compelled, when the ^ people call upon him to sit in a court of impeachment. It seems also to me to be necessary that twenty-seven members should hear this testimony. That is my understanding of the constitution. . . . Senator Murdock: It seems to me that there is some logic as well as law 208 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. in this suggestion: this is the Senate of the State of Kansas, and twenty-one is a quorum of this body. Senatoe Kimball: I move to strike out “twenty-seven” and insert “twenty- one.” Senatob Kelly of McPherson: I believe the constitution requires, upon the final vote, there be twenty-seven votes, or two-thirds of the members elected voting, for a conviction. That being the case, I do not see the logic of the proposition to require twenty-one or twenty-seven, or any other number less than the Senators holding their places to-day as the Senate of Kansas. . . . Senatob Osboen: I move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Ju- diciary, with instructions to report a rule providing for absentee Senators, and leave out all reference to the subject of a quorum. Senatob Schilling: I arise to a point of order. There is no Judiciary Committee present to whom to refer that resolution. The Pbesident: The members of the Judiciary Committee have not lost their existence or power. Senator Osborn’s motion was finally amended so as to read, that rule 17 prepared by Senator Gillett be referred “to the Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to report a rule providing for the attendance of absentee Senators, the committee to report to-morrow morning,” and as so amended it was adopted; yeas 16; nays 10. The Attoeney Geneeal: The roll-call shows that there are but 26 Senators present, and if the Senate insists that we must go on, I want it on the record that we go on under the protest of the State, until there is a sufficient num- ber at least to act upon this matter, provided it was submitted to them for final vote at the present time. . . . The State is paying the expenses of this entertainment at present, and it is entitled to the service of the Senators, or members of this Senate who have taken their oaths to sit as members of this court. These remarks of the Attorney General gave rise to one of several exhibi- tions of senatorial smartness, which will be found in the record. We quote: Senatob Bentley: I would like to propound one question to the Attorney General, if he will permit me. Is the chairman of the Board of Managers present? To this very little and contemptible objection interposed by Senator Bent- ley, the Attorney General well said — that “the State and the Board of Mana- gers are ready to proceed; that this is a civil action, and the State and the Board of Managers are represented by counsel; that the respondent is also represented by counsel, and it is not necessary that the respondent, nor the entire Board of Managers, should be present; but that the State is not ready to proceed unless there is such a court here as would result in the final determination of this case oneway or the other.” And Senator Kimball real- ized the exact measure of Senator Bentley’s smartness, and he supplemented the Attorney General’s remarks: Senatob Kimball: I think it is conceded on the part of the Senate that it THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 209 is not necessary that there should be any member of the Board of Managers present, if they don’t desire to be here. They have employed counsel to rep- resent them, and that’s all that is necessary. Senator Buchan: I desire to offer this resolution: “ Resolved , That twenty one Senators shall constitute a quorum for all the purposes of this trial, except upon the final vote.” Senator Harkness moved that this resolution be referred to the Judiciary Committee, which motion was adopted. Now what is here compressed in about four pages occupies, with other like arguments, seventeen pages of the Impeachment Trial— pages 483 to 499 inclusive — and consumed one whole day and part of another day. And it will be seen that the Senate refused to settle the question of a “quorum” at all — that it referred two propositions on that subject to the Judiciary Committee. At page 527 that committee re- ported a substitute for Senator Gillett’s “ Rule 17,” but the substitute was si- lent as to a “quorum.” One good result came, however, from the persistent efforts of the Attorney General to secure a “constitutional quorum.” During the last twelve days of the trial 28 or more Senators appeared and answered, except on one day, and on the last day there were 35 present. Senator Martin did not attend at all during the trial; and be it said to his credit that he neither asked nor received any pay. Out of the 24 days that the Senate was in actual session as a court, Senator Buchan was absent 17 days, yet he claimed and took pay for 23 days. Senator Kirkpatrick was present only 3 out of the 24 days the court was in actual session, yet he claimed and took pay for 19 days. Senator Johnson was present 7 days, but he neither claimed nor received pay for any part of the time. These four Senators, Buchan, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, and Martin, were not present and did not vote on any of the articles of impeachment. Demurrer to the Articles. — Lawyers tell us that a “demurrer” is an ad- mission of all the facts alleged in the paper or document demurred to, but is a claim nevertheless that such admitted facts are not sufficient in law to war- rant a judgment against the party demurring. Judge Botkin filed a formal demurrer to the articles or charges adopted by the House of Representatives. (Impeachment Trial, p. 57.) It will be proper at this point to give a brief abstract of the articles of impeachment, that it may be seen what facts Judge Botkin admits by his demurrer: The 1st article charges, that Theodosius Botkin, while occupying the offi- cial position as judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, has been repeatedly intoxicated in public places throughout said judical district, to the manifest scandal of the administration of justice, by means whereof he has brought his high office as judge into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Botkin was guilty of high misdemeanors in office; and said article specifies dates and places where 210 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Judge Botkin was drunk, as follows: At Springfield, in Seward county, in April, July, October, and November, 1890; at Santa Fe, in Haskell county, in May, July, November, and December, 1890; at Ulysses, in Grant county, in April, 1890; and at Richfield, in Morton county, in February, 1890.|j Article 2d charges, that Judge Botkin, while engaged in holding court throughout his said district as required by law, and during the times of hold- ing the same, has been repeatedly intoxicated and under the influence of in- toxicating liquors, by means whereof he has brought his high office as judge as aforesaid into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, etc., whereby the said Bot- kin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of high misdemeanors in office; and said article specifies the terms of court during which Judge Botkin was drunk, as follows: In Seward county, the terms held in January, March, and September, 1890, and the term held in January, 1891; in Haskell county, the terms held in May and November, 1890; in Grant county, the terms held in April and December, 1890; and in Stanton county the terms held in May and December, 1890. Article 3d charges, that Judge Botkin, ‘‘while engaged in holding court, and while sitting on the bench as judge, has been repeatedly intoxicated, and un- der the influence of intoxicating liquors,” by means whereof he has brought his high office as judge into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, etc., whereby said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of high misdemeanors in office; and specifications of times and places are stated, as follows: In Seward county, at the June term, 1890; in Grant county, at the April term, 1890; in Haskell county, at the November term, 1890; and in Stanton county at the May term, 1890. Article 4th charges, that said Botkin, while j udge of the Thirty-second J udicial District, on the 29th of August, 1890, on the streets and in public places in the city of Leoti, in Wichita county, was drunk and under the influence of intoxi- cating liquors, and was engaged in a drunken and boisterous quarrel on said streets, and was then and there disorderly, by means whereof the said Botkin has brought his high office as judge into contempt and ridicule and disgrace, and whereby he was guilty of high misdemeanors in office. The 5th article charges, that said Botkin, judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and notwith- standing his duty to enforce the laws to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liq- uors in this State except for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes, has, during his said term of office, knowingly and willfully frequented places within and throughout his said judicial district where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of law; whereby said Botkin was guilty of high misdemeanors in - office; and numerous specifications of times and places are set forth under this article. Article 6th charges, that said Botkin, at sundry specified times and places within his judicial district, and during his said term of office, has knowingly, willfully and illegally bought intoxicating liquors from persons selling the same in violation of law, and has thereby knowingly and willfully encouraged the violation of law. Article 7th charges, that said Botkin has, since and during his said term of office, been an habitual user of intoxicating liquors to such an excess as to in- capacitate him for a clear-minded discharge of his said judicial functions, by means whereof he has brought his high office as judge as aforesaid into THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 211 contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, etc., and whereby the said Botkin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. Article 8th charges, that said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, unmind- ful of the duties of his office, and the dignity and proprieties thereof, did, at the city of Springfield, in his said district, in January, 1891, while in a drug store where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of law, curse and swear in a blasphemous manner, and say in the presence of others that “God Al- mighty was a God-damned fool,” by means whereof he brought his high office into contempt, and ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, and whereby the said Botkin, judge as aforesaid, was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. The 9th article charges, that said Theodosius Botkin, judge as aforesaid, has willfully, maliciously, oppressively, partially and illegally exercised the functions of his said judicial office of his own mere will, and out of favor or enmity, to the oppression of suitors and others, and the manifest scandal and danger of the administration of justice, and to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby he was guilty of high misdemeanors in office. There were four specifications under this charge. The first was for “ille- gally issuing a fictitious and fraudulent” for the arrest of some party for a “fictitious offense,” and for the purpose of carrying out some private and unlawful scheme; but no evidence was offered in its support at the trial. The second specification was, that at the December term of the Grant dis- trict court, Judge Botkin ordered the official stenographer of his court to strike from the record an “exception,” which had been taken by the defend- ant in a criminal case to a ruling made by the court. The third specification charged Judge Botkin with having illegally and ma- liciously caused the arrest and imprisonment of J. F. Van Voorhis and John R. Garrison, on the 7th of January, 1891, as for a.contempt of court, upon the false charge that Garrison and Van Yoorhis were “circulating certain scurri- lous papers against this court and against the judge of this court, and are ac- cusing the judge of this court of being incompetent, and of being a drunkard, and of being a robber, a thief, a boodler, and an aider and abettor of robbers and thieves.” The fourth specification charged that Judge Botkin, on the 13th of January, 1891, caused the arrest and imprisonment, on the charge of “contempt of court,” of H. F. Thompson and C. L. Calvert, upon an affidavit made by his (Botkin’s) direction, and which affidavit was knowingly false and untrue. The 10th article charged that “said Theodosius Botkin, judge as afore- said, has willfully, corruptly, partially, oppressively and illegally exercised the functions of his judicial office, and abused his authority therein of his own mere will, out of favor or enmity, to the oppression of suitors and the mani- fest scandal and great danger of the administration of justice, and to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby the said Botkin was guilty of high misdemeanors in office;” and under this charge it is specifically alleged that Judge Botkin knowingly aided in the robbery of the city of Springfield, Seward county. The series of illegal and oppressive acts, and acts of usur- pation, alleged in said 10th article, are not separately stated; but the specific illegal acts and acts of usurpation charged will be fully stated in the subse- quent pages, when reference is made to the evidence. 212 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Judge Botkin’s demurrer, admitting all that is charged against him in the articles and specifications, was as follows: Now comes Theodosius Botkin, the respondent herein, and reserving the right to further answer thereto, demurs to the said articles of impeachment , and each and every of them, on the following grounds, to wit: First : That the facts stated in said articles do not constitute a misdemeanor in office. Second: That the said articles, and each and every of them, fail to charge this respondent with a misdemeanor in office. Third: That in and by said articles, and each and every of them, this re- spondent is not charged with any offense or matter constituting a misde- meanor in office for which he can be held to answer by and before this court. Fourth: That the statements and charges set forth in the said articles of impeachment, and each and every of them, are not stated with sufficient dis- tinctness and certainty to enable or require this respondent to answer the same. Wherefore, this respondent prays judgment, and that he may be discharged from said premises in said articles specified. Theodosius Botkin, Respondent. Here is the explicit admission that every fact alleged and stated in said ar- ticles of impeachment is true, and it will be readily seen that the demand by the Attorney General and Board of Managers, that there should be a consti- tutional quorum present in order to properly determine the case, was in the interest of law and of substantial justice. Whether the unusual practice on the part of the Senate of entertaining this “demurrer” was or was not a proper proceeding, need not be considered now. The Senate did entertain the demurrer, and five days of time were consumed in discussing a’nd consid- ering the questions of law, and 195 pages of the record are filled with the ar- guments submitted by the attorneys and Senators. (Impeachment Trial, pages 71 to 265.) It may be profitable to briefly mention the points raised and discussed. Mr. Haun, one of Judge Botkin’s attorneys, made the first argument in sup- port of the demurrer. His contentions were, first, that the clause in section 28 of article two of the constitution, (already quoted in full,) which reads: “The Governor and all other officers under this constitution shall be subject to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office ,” meant and means, that the of- fense charged must be a “misdemeanor” punishable by law, and must have been committed in the discharge or pretended discharge of official duties; second, that proceedings by impeachment and trial are in the nature of crim- inal actions, and that, tested by the strict rules applicable to criminal causes, the articles of impeachment were indefinite and uncertain, and did not suffi- ciently charge any offense; and third, that as the removal of district judges was provided for by section 15 of the judiciary article, (also hereinbefore quoted in full,) proceedings by “impeachment” against a district judge are THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 213 not authorized in any case. Mr. Haun made an elaborate argument is sup- port of their position. Mr. Haun was followed by Gen. S. B. Bradford, on the same side. Among other propositions submitted by him, General Bradford said: “There are two ways provided in the constitution for the removal of a judge; and why two? I think it is important to determine for ourselves why there are two modes of disposing of a judge provided for. Now, in the first place, that provision of the constitution to which your attention has been called, which is article 2, section 28, says, ‘The Governor and all other officers under this constitution shall be subject to impeachment.’ The makers of the constitution evidently had in mind that these officers of the State should be impeached for crimes and misdemeanors committed in office , which affect the administration of justice, and which had an effect upon the official acts of the individual who was sought to be impeached. It has for its object the correc- tion of evils which grow out of mal administration — of crimes committed in the discharge of an official duty. . . . We must conclude that the impeach- ment must be for a crime committed , which is a crime under the criminal statutes of the State. He cannot be impeached for simply overt acts as an in- dividual. He cannot be impeached for misconduct as an individual upon the common streets of a city or town, or in any place in the State of Kansas.” General Bradford also argued, as did Mr. Haun, that an impeachable misde- meanor was a “crime” punishable under the laws of the State, and he also contended that in the articles (or several of them) “ there is a vagueness and indefiniteness that does not apprise the accused of what he is charged, by what witnesses he is expected to disprove the charge, where it occurred, or whether it occurred in his judicial district, or in the State of Kansas, and it fails utterly to state a cause of action against this respondent.” Mr. Douglass, of counsel for the Board of Managers, maintained that the articles of impeachment were sufficient, and contended that the demurrer should be overruled. Among other things, he said: “The House of Representatives has charged Judge Botkin, respondent in this case, with certain offenses. They have charged him with being, while a judge in office , publicly drunk in many places in his district. They have charged him with being drunk during the time of holding court. They have charged him with being drunk, (or, what is synonymous according to all authorities, intoxicated ,) while acting as judge on the bench. They have charged him with frequenting places where liquor is sold in violation of law; with knowingly purchasing liquor in places where it was illegally sold. They have charged him with oppressive use of the powers of office; with the op- pressive use of the power to punish for contempt. They have charged him with blasphemy. They have charged him with using the power of his office to rob the treasury of the little town of Springfield. They have charged him with all these, and some other offenses; and by his demurrer he says (for the purposes of this argument at least,) ‘I am guilty of all I am charged with, but conceding that this is true, I have committed no offense for which I can be impeached.’ We are therefore confronted by some of the most important questions that have ever confronted $ court ip tlais ppjpnionwe^ltji since its —18 214 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . organization. When the roll is called upon the question of whether this de- murrer will be sustained or overruled, as to each one of these charges, every Senator here must place himself on record as saying whether or not in his judgment these various offenses enumerated, whatever they may be, do or do not constitute an impeachable offense under the laws and constitution of this State; and that decision becomes a part, not only of the history of the State, but a part of the history of each member of this court. . . . “What is a misdemeanor in office? Why, a misdemeanor committed by a man at a time when he is in office, as distinguished from a misdemeanor com- mitted at a time when he is not in office. . . . “Now, I want to ask the court to consider for a moment, when is a judge in office ? Or rather, when is he not in office? Is there a lawyer here, or a member of this Senate, who does not know that at any hour of the day or night a judge may be called upon to exercise some of the functions of a judge, under our constitution and our statutes? He is in office from the hour he is sworn in until the hour his successor qualifies and is sworn in. . . . “There have been a number of judges impeached in this country, and I may as well mention here some of the most important of these cases: Judge Addison, in Pennsylvania, was impeached and convicted for a non- indictable offense; Judge Pickering, a Federal judge, was impeached and convicted for a non-indictable offense; Judge Prescott, probate judge in Massachusetts, was impeached for a non-indictable offense, and was convicted; Judge Cox, of Minnesota, was impeached for an offense claimed to have been non-indict- able, and was convicted; Judge Chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was impeached for an offense claimed to be not indictable, but was not convicted, although a majority of the Senators favored conviction; Judge Hubbell, of Wisconsin, was impeached for misconduct in office, but was acquitted by a divided court; Judge Page, in Minnesota, was impeached for an offense claimed to be non-indictable; (he was tried on the merits and was acquitted, although a majority was against him;) Judge Peck, Federal judge, was impeached, was tried before the Senate, and acquitted; and Judge Barnard was impeached in New York for misconduct in office and was convicted. That is a list of the leading cases in this country wherein judges have been tried in impeachment proceedings for misconduct, either personal or official.” Mr. Douglass took up the several articles charging J udge Botkin with grave and corrupt offenses, and acts of gross personal and official indecency, and discussed them at length. He closed as follows: “ It devolves upon this court, in the determination of the questions aris- ing on this demurrer, to fix for all future time the standard of judicial be- havior, judicial integrity, and judicial honor in the great State of Kansas. If you say that that judge has been guilty of the things charged in this pro- ceeding, and is yet not impeachable; if you say these things do not consti- tute a misdemeanor under the constitution; if you say that he can drag his judicial ermine in the mud, as charged; if you say that he can be guilty of blasphemy; if you say he can be guilty of aiding and abetting the constant violation of the law, and conniving at and aiding in the plunder of a city treasury, as he is charged with doing, you set up a standard of judicial honor and judicial morality in this State that must redound to the injury of the commonwealth, and. to the injury of every man, woman and child within its THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 215 borders. . . . No offense is small in a judicial officer; and I hope it will be the determination, as it is now the high privilege, of this court to set for future generations a standard in these matters that, instead of lowering the tone of public sentiment, will raise it up; that, instead of encouraging vice, will encourage virtue. . . . This, it seems to me, is the duty which this Senate, in pronouncing upon this demurrer, owes not less to the law than to itself and to the people of Kansas.” Attorney General Ives followed Mr. Douglass on the part of the State, and presented the same general views of the law. In regard to the fourth article, which charged Judge Botkin with drunkenness and debauchery at Leoti, in a county outside of his district, Attorney General Ives said: “Article four charges him with being intoxicated and engaged in a drunken and boisterous quarrel on the streets of Leoti, and this court can take judicial notice that Wichita county is not within his judicial district. The question is, Was that a misdemeanor in office? If it was only Theodosius Botkin that was at Leoti that day, drunk and boisterous on the street, where was the judge of the Thirty -second Judicial District? Was there a vacancy in that office at that time? Was not Theodosius Botkin, upon the streets of Leoti at that time, as much judge of the Thirty-second Judicial District as he was when at his home in Springfield? If in that boisterous quarrel upon the streets of Leoti there had been an affray, and Theodosius Botkin had been killed, would it not have created a vacancy in the judgeship of the 32d Judicial District? . . . “I do not believe that the members of this court will say to the public and to the world that Kansas is a whited sepulchre — beautiful on the outside, but inwardly full of festering corruption, and dishonest and corrupt officials. I say that at this time the people of this State, through their representatives, should meet this emergency, and should say to the world that they consider drunkenness in public places, drunkenness upon the bench, blasphemy, op- pression and cruelty in the exercise of the duties of office, are not such trivial matters as shall not render him unfit to hold the high office of judge of the district court.” Mr. Webb, of the Board of Managers, closed the argument on the part of the State against the demurrer. (Impeachment Trial, pages 191 to 230.) Mr. Webb had scarcely begun his argument when Judge Botkin’s counsel withdrew the demurrer to the 8th article — the article charging gross blasphemy. The strong and vigorous arguments presented by Mr. Douglass and General Ives were more than Judge Botkin could stand respecting the charge of blasphemy and impiety, and he made haste to stand from under. Mr. Webb discussed at length the import or meaning of the phrase, “misde- meanor in office,” tracing it from its first appearance in connection with im- peachment proceedings in the constitution of Pennsylvania in 1790, down through various State constitutions. Neither the full phrase nor the words “in office” occur in the constitution of the United States relating to impeach- ments, and, hence, are not discussed either by Story or Kent, nor by the Uni- ted States Senate in the impeachment trials occurring before that tribunal. Mr. Webb quoted the language or phraseology of the several State constitu- 216 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. tions, showing a great diversity in expression as to grounds or causes for which impeachment would lie, and that in some States care had been taken to define impeachable offenses in such manner that the question raised by Judge Botkin’s counsel on the demurrer could not arise there. But several other States besides Pennsylvania, Ohio_and Kansas employed the same words — “for any misdemeanor in office” — without any qualifying words or terms. We quote from Mr. Webb’s argument: “In the light of the changes themselves, atid the facts surrounding at the time, I maintain, that the word ‘misdemeanor,’ in the phrase, ‘for any mis- demeanor in office,’ was intended to be used in its common-law sense, and embraces ‘all immoral acts which tend to the prejudice of a community,’ whether punishable by fine or imprisonment or not, and includes not only those crimes and misdemeanors which are specifically defined and denounced by statute, but every public act calculated to disturb the public peace, or to offend public decency, or the dignity, credit or honor of the State, including drunkenness, blasphemy, obscenity, and any conduct and speech calculated to bring any high public official into contempt and disgrace before the peo- ple, and his office into disrepute. . . And the words ‘in office,’ mean while in office, and not after the expiration of the officer’s term, or after his resignation or removal; and these words ‘in office’ also plainly indicate that ‘misdemeanors’ of any character, committed by an impeachable officer while in office, are impeachable offenses.” Mr. Webb discussed the articles of impeachment at length, contending that each article and each specification set forth or stated an offense for which im- peachment and removal from office would lie under the constitution of Kan- sas. We quote further from Mr. Webb’s argument: “By the demurrer of the respondent, all that is set forth in these articles (except the eighth, as to which the demurrer was withdrawn) is admitted to be true. A more solemn duty never was devolved by the law upon any hu- man tribunal than that devolved upon this court by the constitution and laws, in settling and determining the effect of the articles of impeachment, as put to the severest test by the demurrer which has been interposed by the re- spondent. It is for this court to say whether or not the acts of malfeasance, and mal administration, acts of personal misconduct, those connected with no official duty, but yet committed within the term for which the respondent was elected, constitute offenses under the constitution of this State for which he may be removed upon impeachment. “Mr. President, this is a government of law, not of men. While constitu- tions and laws do not administer and execute themselves — while natural per- sons, selected for their supposed qualifications and fitness as to morality, decency, good behavior, and proper learning, are chosen by the people to exe- cute the laws enacted for their protection — nevertheless, it is the law that governs, and no man is above the law. The law may lay its hand upon any officer of this State, from the chief magistrate to any township officer within our borders. If it were a government of men, we would likely see many acts of the grossest character on the part of public officers, acts constituting both personal and official misconduct, and we would see the State itself endangered by being brought into disrespect and disgrace ? and the law itself would be THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 217 found wholly inadequate for the purposes for which it was made. We would see persons deprived of their legal rights; we would see innocent persons im- prisoned; we would see men deprived of their property without due process of law; and unless this court in this case shall, by its decision upon this de- murrer, say that the offenses charged in the articles of impeachment against the respondent do constitute impeachable offenses for which he may be re- moved from office upon sufficient proof, then I undertake to say that our government fails to accomplish the purposes for which it was designed.” Senator Kelley of Crawford: I would like to ask one question. Counsel for the respondent claimed that these specifications are not definite enough. I do not remember of hearing Judge Webb refer to that, and I would like to have his opinion in regard to it. Mr. Webb: I was not unmindful of the fact that the learned counsel who opened the argument on the part of the respondent consumed considerable time in giving us his views, and in citing authorities supposed to support his views upon the proposition, that these articles and specifications were too in- definite and uncertain. But the plan of tihe argument upon the part of the Board of Managers and the State, as I stated at the outset, naturally took that branch away from my consideration. I had thought it was sufficiently dis- cussed by the learned counsel who represents the Board of Managers, who made the opening argument on our side of the case; but if not, in response to the question propounded by the Senator from Crawford, I have this to say : The changes in procedure taken upon impeachments made in this country an hundred years ago, in all those States where there has not been prescribed any punishment except removal from office, and especially in those States where in addition to the provision prescribing punishment by removal and disqual- ification alone, it is expressly declared that the accused party, whether acquit- ted or convicted, shall be nevertheless subject to indictment, trial and punishment according to law, the character and quality of impeachment pro- ceedings are changed from the strict rules governing criminal actions to the liberal rules which obtain and control in civil actions All that was read from Wharton’s Precedents of Indictments was and is, in my judg- ment, without any kind of appropriate application to anything in this case. And why? Proceedings upon impeachment are in their nature civil. All that is wanted is to designate the person, the office to which he was elected and holds, the time he entered upon it, the nature and character of the acts, and when committed — showing that they were committed within the term for which he was elected, and while holding office — and that in their nature and character they constitute a “misdemeanor,” as that word is understood in common and general parlance; and when that is said, any articles of im- peachment are complete and sufficient under the laws of this State, or any other State having similar laws In my judgment there is not one of these articles that is not full and complete in certainty and in defi- niteness — not one which does not fully advise and inform the respondent of the nature and character of the charge preferred against him by the House of Representatives. They tell him when and where the offense was supposed to have been committed by him. What more does he want? He comes in here by his demurrer and says: “All that is true; I was drunk seventeen times in my district; I was drunk four times upon the bench; I was drunk ten times while the courts in my district were in session, and while I was in the county 218 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. towns for the purpose of holding court. I am a habitual drunkard.’’ And he says — Senator Schilling: I apprehend the Senator from Crawford has undoubt- edly been satisfactorily answered, and I call “time.” Mr. Hanback closed the discussion on the demurrer for Judge Botkin. His argument was characteristic of the whole defense. Here are a few extracts from it: “It is twenty years or more since I first met the respondent, Judge Theo- dosius Botkin, and I venture to say this much, that during all that time, of long, long years of acquaintance, I never saw him in any other than a true- hearted, noble exemplification of manly manhood. If I could draw aside the curtain of the years I would show him a boy at the plow, his music the song of birds and the lowing of herds, steadily moving onward and upward in the scale; a‘ soldier for his country; aye, a compeer of noble men; and afterward filling offices of high trust in this State, until brought by the people, and by the votes of the people, to the high place he now fills. . . . “This is a court from the people. The voice of the House commanding, as it did under the constitution, the attention of this body, received that just at- tention its call demanded. It came here by its managers, chosen by its will, to prefer charges against an officer of the State. What charges were pre- ferred? What crimes are alleged to have been committed? You have them before you here, as they have been rung in your ears; and I stand here to- night to say that there is no charge made there which justifies the deliberate attention of this body. I say that the respondent at the bar is entitled to be shown what has been exhibited against him, and the charges upon which he is to answer, and that the offense must be clearly stated. The proposition is simply this: that you can make a shot-gun charge of this thing; that you can ram down in the chambers a set of charges, and fire them off, and pick up the pieces and hold them together before this body as a charge upon which you have to have a trial. I deny that proposition. . . . The constitution says in so many words, that “the Governor and all other officers under this consti- tution may be impeached for any misdemeanor in office.” What does it mean when it says misdemeanors? Does it mean something that we know not of — something that existed two hundred years ago? Does it mean any charge that may be brought by a pack of hounds that follows the trail after humanity sometimes? . . . “Can it be said for a minute, can it be maintained that the first charge made here, and all that follows in the specifications, shows any cause for ex- amination here? This demurrer was interposed against the express objec- tion of Theodosius Botkin. He is poor; he is poverty-stricken; he stands here without a dollar, as he has shown to you. His attorneys are poor, and we are all in the same pocket; and we agreed that it would be better for him to exercise his constitutional right of objecting to the sufficiency of the in- dictment. I want to say that I do not come here confessing that he is a drunkard in the gutter; . . . but when the opening charge in this series of charges is made, that he ‘has been repeatedly intoxicated in public places throughout the judicial district, to the manifest scandal of the administration of justice,’ ... I say that the charge is not such that should commend it to the judgment of this court. But outside of that, I say that even though it be specific enough in its terms, it is a charge, not that Theodosius Botkin THE BOTKIN TRIAL . 219 sitting as a judge, not of Botkin as the officer of the law, but of Botkin as the citizen; and I assume as part of the defense in this case, that in order to constitute the offense as contemplated by law which would warrant the im- peachment and trial before the court of impeachment, the offense must have been committed by the judge in his official capacity. I assume that it was not, and it is not, the intention of the law to come upon the citizen who hap- pens to be occupying an official place, for a supposed offense, or upon a charge of an act committed by him while he was not engaged as a public officer, but in the private walks of life as a citizen. ... I submit to you the true rule to be, that he is a judge when exercising the prerogatives, of his office; that he is responsible for the fair determination of the rights of parties that come before him according to his judgment; that he is not to be held responsible for errors innocently committed?” The arguments on the part of the State and of Judge Botkin having been concluded, Senators proceeded to consider and determine the demurrer, which was overruled on the 28th of April. In the light of the vote given on the 22d of May, after hearing the testimony, the opinions expressed by some of the Senators on the demurrer are worth remembering; ( Impeachment Trial, pages 289 to 265): Senatob Mohlek: ... I do not wish anything I may say to be con- strued into an expression of an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused of any charge preferred against him. If I should vote here on the question of sustaining or overruling this demurrer, I should record my vote in favor of overruling it — overruling it as to each and every charge, and each and every specification. My reasons for that are these: It is not this Board of Managers that presents these charges. It is not any prosecutor from the western part of the State, or the Thirty-second Judicial District, that pre- fers these charges. These charges are preferred under the constitution of the State, by a coordinate branch of the Legislature of the State of Kansas, of equal power and of equal dignity as the Senate. . . . Much fault has been found with the indefiniteness of some of the charges. . . . The constitution expressly provides that the accused [in a criminal case in the district court ] shall be informed of the nature and character of the offense in the manner prescribed, and be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so as to give the party an opportunity to make his de- fense thereto. But we have no such rules with reference to the court of impeachment. . . . We must not look so much to the charge as to the evi- dence adduced under the charge. I do not know what the evidence would be in this case, and I do not care. I am clearly of the opinion that before this man can be convicted he must be proven guilty of a misdemeanor in office. By “misdemeanor in office,’ 1 1 mean an act committed by him in his official capac- ity; in other words, that anything he may do while off the bench he does as an individual and not as a judge. . . . Then again, all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. I take this view, that it is the House of Representatives, and that house alone, that is to judge of the sufficiency of the articles of impeachment; that when it, a co- ordinate branch of the Legislature, approves the articles which it sends here, it is not within our power to challenge their sufficiency. We must hear the evidence and decide, and we must acquit or convict the man if the evidence sustains it. 220 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. To a layman this reasoniDg of Senator Mohler seems contradictory. These “ charges,’* made by articles of impeachment, ought to be sufficient in form and substance to show on their face that a “misdemeanor in office” had been committed. If they do not so show, there is nothing for the Senate to “try.” Six, if not seven, of the ten articles of impeachment against Judge Botkin charge him with offenses committed “while off the bench,” and therefore, ac- cording to Senator Mohler, they do not charge “impeachable offenses;” and yet Senator Mohler “would vote in favor of overruling the demurrer as to each and every charge and specification” — and thus force the State, at great ex- pense, to present its evidence to prove what (no matter how plainly estab- lished) would still be unimpeachable offenses. But Senator Mohler did not vote at all on the demurrer. Other Senators expressed themselves as follows: Senatob Bentley: My judgment is, that a demurrer in a case of this kind is not proper practice. The demurrer simply means, in this case, a motion to strike out or quash, and that is its effect. With that view of the case, I am in favor of striking out all of articles four, five, and six, and overruling the demurrer of respondent as to the other articles. . . . “From the argument of respondent’s counsel, Judge Botkin in his district is portrayed as playing a dual role. When on the bench he was a court; when he left the bench and went to supper he was an individual, and no longer a court. Hence, they argue that if he became intoxicated off the bench, that he cannot be held to answer in this court of impeachment. I am unable to draw the line between the individual and the judge. I am unable to see where the judge leaves off and the citizen begins. . . . My theory is, that when a judge is inducted into office, and takes the oath of office, he continues to be a judge until his successor is elected and qualified. He is sworn to support the constitution of the United States, and of the State of Kansas. He must not violate the constitution of this State; if he does, he is liable to impeach- ment. . . . For the purposes of this demurrer, the charges, articles, and specifications thereunder are to be taken as true, as stated. Upon this theory, a district judge, guilty of being intoxicated on many occasions as charged, is unfit to continue in office and to discharge the exalted functions of that office; . . . and I cannot afford to go down upon this record as an advo- cate of the doctrine that a man in this State, who holds the high office of judge of the district court in any of the judicial districts of this State, can descend to the level of a common drunkard, debaucher, and brawler, and not be answerable to the people in a court of this character. I feel that my vote cast upon the other side of this question would do an injustice and would mis- represent the sentiment of the people of my district, who are law abiding, orderly, and intelligent to the highest degree. If the district judge of my ju- dicial district had been guilty of one-tenth of the misconduct attributed to Judge Botkin, and which is for the purposes of this plea admitted as being true, instead of being upon the bench he would now be in the jail of Sedgwick county. . . . “I am unable to draw any fine line of distinction between the court and the individual. On the bench, or off, Judge Botkin was to my mind always judge of the Thirty- second Judicial District of Kansas. Believing this to be the case, I shall vote to overrule the demurrer to all of the articles except those which I have enumerated.” THE BOTKIN "TRIAL. 221 And yet, although every charge preferred against Judge Botkin had been proven by overwhelming testimony, Senator Bentley, from personal and par- tisan considerations, goes upon the record finally as voting “not guilty” on every article. Senator Berry: I believe this court has the undoubted right to entertain and sustain the demurrer as to such articles as do not charge the respondent with a ‘ misdemeanor in office,” as contemplated by section 27, article 2, of the constitution. A “misdemeanor in office” need not be a misdemeanor un- der the statute. Many offenses made misdemeanors by statute could have no possible connection with or effect upon the discharge of the duties of a public officer. . . . Assault, and being intoxicated, are made misdemeanors under the statutes, yet an officer could be guilty of these and still honestly and con- scientiously discharge every function of his office with conspicuous ability. Numerous instances of this fact have come within the knowledge of every observer. It is my opinion, therefore, that by “misdemeanor in office” in the constitution, its framers meant such official acts or misconduct as injuri- ously affected or incapacitated an officer in the discharge of his duties. . . . Holding these views, I am fully convinced that articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 do not charge the respondent with “misdemeanor in office.” . . . Articles 3, 7, 9 and 10 plainly charge the respondent with official misconduct and mal adminis- tration of office. The charge that he was drunk upon the bench while sitting as judge; that he has been an habitual user of intoxicating liquors to such an excess as to incapacitate him for a clear-minded discharge of his judicial functions; that he willfully, maliciously, oppressively, partially and illegally exercised the functions of his judicial office, and abused his authority therein, to the oppression of suitors and others, certainly constitute “misdemeanors in office” of the gravest character. I therefore vote to overrule the demurrer as to the last articles named, and put the respondent on his trial for the offenses charged therein. And yet Senator Berry, like Senator Bentley, with evidence sufficient to sup- port all the articles which he conceded to be good, went back on his clear con- victions of right and duty, as stated above, and voted “not guilty” as to them all. Senator Carroll of Miami: Mr. President, I have known the respondent personally for fifteen years. He has been my neighbor and friend. He is an old soldier, and all my sympathies are in his favor; but as a member of this court, acting under the solemn obligation of my oath, I am required to de- cide this question according to the law of the case as I understand it. I can- not consent to the proposition, that a judge of the district court of Kansas can become repeatedly intoxicated in the streets and public places in the vari- ous cities of his district, and not commit an offense which would render him liable to impeachment. . . . Senator Elliston: . . . Misdemeanor, as employed, means miscon- duct, misbehavior, and. includes everything from the highest felony to the lowest offense against good morals and decency, calculated to forfeit confi- dence or respect; and so elastic as to be adjustable to the public estimate of these qualities at all periods. “In office” must mean, during incum- bency of or while in office; otherwise, it forces us to say “misdemeanor” 222 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. only means felony, or concede that the phrase abrogates the remainder of the section. ... I am convinced that each article, indeed each speci- fication of the first four articles, states a technical misdemeanor. I am further persuaded that each and every article discloses such misconduct as must deprive the judge of that measure of public respect and confidence indispensable to the proper and satisfactory discharge of his official duties, and therefore must vote to overrule the demurrer as to each and all articles. Senatob Emeet: I am of the opinion that a district judge should not be impeached and removed from office for light and trivial causes. I cannot agree that every misdemeanor committed by him as an individual, and having no connection with the duties of his office, is an impeachable offense, but think that for such offense he must be punished by the laws applicable to all citi- zens. Yet the administration of justice demands that he at all times hold himself in readiness to administer the law fairly and impartially, and with dignity and propriety. Article one charges the respondent with being repeat- edly intoxicated in public places throughout his district. The ten specifica- tions locate the times and places where intoxicated and under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Whether the intoxication charged affected his ability, to properly perform his duties , depends upon the degree of intoxication; and the charges, in my judgment, may or may not state an offense, owing to the de- gree of intoxication. I am therefore constrained to vote to overrule the de- murrer. Here is another evidence of pigmy statesmanship, and let it be remembered that Senator Emery yielded to the political pressure and voted “not guilty,” when the evidence of Judge Botkin’s guilt was beyond a shadow of doubt. Senatob Foeney: Under our constitution, the House of Representative has the exclusive prerogative to prepare and present articles of impeachment. The Senate, after the articles are filed, should hear the testimony offered by the Board of Managers on the part of the House, and after a full hearing de- cide as to whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the respondent of the offenses charged. I do not believe that the strict rules of pleading in crimi- nal cases in our courts should be held necessary in presenting articles of impeachment. . . . The meaning of the phrase “in office,” as used in our constitution, in that part thereof defining the crimes for which an officer may be impeached, simply means, while the incumbent is discharging the du- ties of the office; or, in other words, from the time the officer is elected and qualified till his successor is elected and qualified. . . . The phrase “in of- fice” has been added to the definition of impeachable offenses, to distinguish between the American and English idea of impeachment. In England a private citizen could be impeached, and an officer could be impeached for acts com- mitted before he was elected or appointed to the office. In the United States, where the authority to impeach an officer .for high crimes is defined, our ear- liest constitution-makers, not being in sympathy with that idea, limited the crimes for which an officer can be impeached to acts committed while an offi- cer. I believe that a judge of the district court can be impeached for crimes committed outside of his judicial district. ... • Senatob Gillett: I cannot yield my assent to the doctrine that impeach- ment will lie for an alleged offense which is not indictable, and which is not charged to have in any way affected the administration of official duty. There THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 223 is, in my judgment, only one forum where individual habits and questions of moral or immoral practices, not affecting the discharge of official duties, may be tried, and that is at the ballot-box of the district selecting the officer. . . Senator Harkness: We are a constitutional tribunal solely, bound by no law, either statute or common, which may limit our constitutional preroga- tive, save, perhaps, the precedents established by parliamentary bodies. We are a law unto ourselves, bound only by the natural principles of equity and justice, and that salus populi supremo, est lex. In my opinion, the weight of authority is to the effect that there is scarcely any limit to the offenses for which impeachment will lie, provided there is involved in the commission thereof moral turpitude, or public scandal or disgrace. Impeachable offenses are as various as the abuses of office, and as ramified as scandalous miscon- duct can go. Impeachment is designed to remove unfit persons from office. I am further of the opinion that the words “in office,” as used in the consti- tution, fairly interpreted, should be construed as meaning “during the incum- bent’s term of office,” and not simply, “while engaged in the discharge of his official duties.” The latter interpretation would, to a great extent, nullify the impeachment section of our constitution. No clearer statement of the law was made by any Senator than that stated by Senator Harkness; but he entertained the opinion that articles five and six did not state impeachable offenses, and voted to sustain the demurrer as to those articles, and to overrule it as to the other articles. Senator Hays re- garded it as the duty of the Senate to hear the evidence, and voted to overrule the demurrer as to all the articles. Senator Lockard said that he could not “vote to put the respondent on his trial upon any charge that he would not vote to convict on if proven;” that the words “in office,” meant that “no offi- cial can be impeached except for crimes and misdemeanors, or misconduct, while performing some of the functions of his office.” He therefore voted to sustain the demurrer as to articles one, two, four, five, and six, and overrule it as to articles three, seven, nine, and ten. Senator Long: ... I believe the term “in office” means “while in of- fice,” and that an officer may be impeached for acts committed while in office, though they be not indictable, and not done in an official capacity. The com- mission of any act, though not immediately connected with the execution of his office, which disqualifies, and renders him incapable of performing the duties of an office requiring dignity, confidence, ability, and integrity, may reasonably be construed to be a misdemeanor in office. ... I vote to overrule the demurrer as to each and every article. Senator Meohem: I desire that my explanation shall go to the entire arti- \ cles of impeachment. The difficulty that we are met with on this demurrer \ arises from a section of the constitution, which provides that judges of the district court may be impeached for misdemeanors in office. It seems to me very clear, that the word “misdemeanor” should be taken, not as it is under- stood in the criminal statute, as an offense less than felony, but in its broader and popular sense, meaning misconduct. . . . The greatest difficulty, how- ever, is upon the two words, “in office.” Does it apply to offenses commit- ted while in office, or does it apply to offenses with reference purely to official 224 POPULIST HAXD-BOOK. conduct? Impeachment is defined as an accusation; a charge. It is the ci- tation before a tribunal for official misconduct. Now then, if a judge can be impeached for any misdemeanor while in office, the court of impeachment re- solves itself into a criminal court for the punishment of crimes under the statute. Such, clearly, was never the intention of the framers of our constitution. . . . Senatob Weight: ... I vote to sustain the demurrer to articles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the impeachment, for the following reasons: In articles 1 and 2 the charge is made that Judge Botkin was intoxicated upon the streets of cer- tain towns in his judicial district, but it is not charged or claimed that the rights of any one were abridged in any way, or interfered with in the least. In article 4 it is charged that he was drunk and under the influence of intoxi- cating liquor. This is charged to have occurred outside of his judicial district, and he certainly was not acting in an official capacity at that time. In arti- cle 5 the respondent is charged with visiting drug stores and other places where intoxicating liquors were sold unlawfully. Article 6 charges him with having “illegally bought intoxicating liquors from persons selling the same in violation of law.” It does not appear from the charges and specifications, that he committed any of these acts in an official capacity . . . . The vote was taken on each article, whether the “demurrer” thereto should be sustained. The following will sufficiently designate the vote of each Sena- tor: Article 1. Yeas, Senators Berry, Gillett. Howard, Kimball, Lockard, Mechem, Boe, Schilling, and Wright — 9. Nays, 23. Absent, Senators Buchan, John- son, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 2. Yeas, Senators Berry, Gillett, Howard, Kelley of Crawford, Lock- ard, Mechem, Norton, Roe, Schilling, and Wright — 10. Nays, 22. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush— 7. Article 3. Yeas, none.. Nays, 32. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirk- patrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 4. Yeas, Senators Bentley, Berry, Carroll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Emery, Gillett, Howard, Kelly of McPherson, Lockard, Mechem, Moody. Murdock, Norton, Rankin, Richter, Roe, Schilling, Senior, and Wright — 19. Nays, 13. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson,Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler. and Rush — 7. Article 5. Yeas, Senators Bentley, Berry, Carroll of Leavenworth, Emery, Gillett, Harkness, Howard, Kelley of Crawford, Kelly of McPherson, Kimball, Lockard, Mechem, Moody, Murdock, Norton, Richter, Schilling, Senior, Tucker, Wheeler, and Wright — 22. Nays, 10. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Martin. Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 6. Yeas, Senators Bentley, Berry, Carroll of Leavenworth, Emery, Gillett, Harkness, Howard, Kelley of Crawford. Kelly of McPherson, Kimball, Lockard, Mechem, Moody, Murdock, Norton, Richter, Roe, Schilling. Senior, Wheeler, and Wright — 21. Nays, 11. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart. Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 7. Yeas, none. Nays. 32. Absent, Senators Buchan, Kirkpatrick, Johnson, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 8. Demurrer withdrawn; no vote. THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 225 Article9. Yeas, none. Nays, 32. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirk- patrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. Article 10. Yeas, none. Nays, 32. Absent, Senators Buchan, Johnson, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, and Rush — 7. This vote shows that the “demurrer” was sustained as to the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles, and overruled as to all the others. Botkin’s Answer. — The overruling of the demurrer to the 1st, 2d, 3d, 7th, 9th and 10th articles, and the demurrer being withdrawn as to the 8th article, Judge Botkin filed his answer, pleading that he was “ not guilty of the said supposed high crimes and misdemeanors in office, or any of them laid to his charge, in the manner and form as the honorable the House of Representa- tives have in and by the said charges complained against him.” (Impeach- ment Trial, p. 272.) The Testimony. — Upon the issue joined by the respondent’s plea, the tes- timony was taken. The Board of Managers called and examined 50 wit- nesses on the part of the State, in support of the articles of impeachment, and also offered the records of the district court of Seward county respect- ing the charges set forth in the 9th and 10th articles, and the records of the city of Springfield respecting some of the matters alleged in the 10th article. Judge Botkin called and examined in his defense 64 witnesses out of 98 sub- penaed by him. The testimony occupies over 800 pages of the official report of the trial, pretty near evenly divided between the State and the respondent. It is impossible to either state or condense this testimony within the compass allowed for this chapter. Mr. Wm. P. Hackney Appears. — An important feature in this impeach- ment trial was the appearance of Mr. Wm. P. Hackney, of Cowley county. The Senate met as a court on the 20th of April. Judge Botkin appeared with his five attorneys, Messrs. Bradford, Haun, Hanback, Hutchison, and Pitzer. The next day Judge Botkin announced in writing that he was “absolutely un- able to employ counsel,” etc., and the Senate made the absurd and void order of appointing for him the same five attorneys who had already been an- nounced and entered as attorneys for Judge Botkin. The demurer had been filed, argued by Judge Botkin’s attorneys, and after decision thereon the tak- ing of testimony commenced on April 29th. Five witnesses had testified, and had been cross-examined by General Bradford, counsel for Judge Botkin, and the sixth witness was being examined, when on April 30th (record p. 362) the following occurred: Mr. Bradford: Mr. President, I ask that the name of the Hon. W. P. Hack- ney be recorded as representing the respondent, and he will proceed to exam- ine this witness on cross-examination. The Senate voted to grant this request, and Mr, Wm. P. Hackney forthwith 226 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. took charge of Judge Botkin’s defense; and from that time to the taking of the final vote was in the fore-front, managing the defense before the Senate, and working for Botkin’s acquittal in every possible way. Mr. Hackney is the person to whom $4,000 of the $5,250, of which the city of Springfield was robbed, was paid. He is the man who was recommended to members of the city council by Judge Botkin (Impeachment Trial, p. 464) in the following terms: “Whatever Hackney tells the boys to do, go ahead and do it, for he won’t lead you into any trouble.” This was said on the morning on which the council-meeting was held, and voted Hackney $4,000, which Botkin ordered his receiver to pay, and which was paid that same night — and for which Hackney never did an hour’s work. Why was Hackney’s presence before the Senate rendered necessary after the court had been in session ten days, and not before? What were those five attorneys, first employed by Botkin, and afterward appointed by the Senate to guard and protect his interest, doing? What influences were required to mould that partisan Senate so as to secure Botkin’s acquittal? Mr. Hackney had been frequently a member of the House and also of the Senate. He was a loud-mouthed and noisy Republican. He had done a great deal of that kind of political work which is supposed to place ambitious men “under obligations.” As a noisy howler and political worker he was a man to be courted on the one hand, and to be feared on the other. Again, he was a party to the robbery of the city of Springfield, and whether he kept all the swag that came to his hands, or divided it with Botkin, the trial and conviction of Botkin for that robbery was the trial and conviction of Hackney as well. So he came — to make a defense for Botkin and himself. His con- spicuous management of that defense, and his idea of making it according to the needs of the Hackney-Botkin combination, appears in the fact that after his arrival on the scene he cross-examined 39 out of 45 witnesses called by the State, and examined in chief 60 out of the 64 witnesses called for the defense, and not being satisfied with the defense so far made, he offered himself as a witness, and testified for Botkin and himself with reference to the Springfield robbery transaction. Never was a more desperate defense made, nor more desperate means used to shield an unworthy and disgraceful public officer, and to gloss over wicked, corrupt, and illegal acts, than is shown in the Bot- kin trial. Facts Pboven. — A large number of witnesses — public officers, attorneys, business men, farmers, and others having business upon the courts held in Judge Botkin’s district — testified that they had seen Judge Botkin drunk in the year 1890, and January, 1891. Among those who so testified were the fol- lowing: T. W, Marshall, county attorney, F. B, Brown, county superinten- THE BOTKIN TRIAL . 227 dent, J. B. Moore, farmer, S. M. Alexander, register of deeds, D. S. Fleming, Rev. A. Ewen, and H. N. Wixon, merchant, all of Grant county; Alvin Camp- bell and Milton Brown, attorneys, of Garden City; Dr. J. A. L. Williams and Dr. J. H. B. Adams, former residents of the city of Springfield; T. B. Reeve and A. L. Davis, farmers, of Seward county; H. F. Millikan, register of deeds, John C. Buster, sheriff, J. R. Field, farmer, and John J. Miller, pub- lisher of the Santa Fe Monitor , all of Haskell county; I. N. Bunting, editor, and S. N. Wheeler, attorney, formerly of Morton county; J. A. Wemple, W. E. Ralstin, H. F. Thompson, editor, S. A. Klein, postmaster and merchant, Mar- cus L. Trout, justice of the peace, J. F. Van Yoorhis, chairman of Republi- can county central committee, W. S. Allen, carpenter and machinist, and Joseph Waggoner, mayor, all of the city of Springfield; P. P. Hillerman, at- torney, G. G. Leighton, Henry Shortman, and E. M. Murray, ex-city council- men, and John W. Tice, all former residents of the city of Springfield; J. K. Beauchamp, county attorney of Seward county; T. E. Dempsey, attorney of Greensburg; Wm. C. Montgomery, member of council of Johnson City, Stan- ton county; and Samuel N. Wood, editor of the Woodsdale Sentinel , Stevens county. All the above-named persons testified that they had seen Judge Bot- kin drunk , some of them many times, and each fixed the time and place. Sev- eral other witnesses, among them L. C. Cash and J. W. Maddox, testified to having seen Judge Botkin drink whisky on several occasions. That Judge Botkin was either drunk, or the most dangerous man who ever sat on the bench, is shown by the testimony of several witnesses. The record of his trial shows that at the January term, 1890, of the Seward district court, held in Springfield, one E. M. Moon was on trial upon the criminal charge of cattle stealing; that during the trial Botkin and Moon were frequently seen drinking whisky together, and that Moon was seen to be treating some of the jurors impaneled in his case. A few questions and answers from the testi- mony of T. B. Reeve (page 319) are worthy of note: Q. State if you saw the Judge and Moon drinking together at any time dur- ing that day. A. I did. Q. Just state all the circumstances connected with it. A. I saw them [Moon and Botkin] behind the court-house. Moon says, “We’ll have something to drink if we chip in ;” and I chipped in, and he went and got what I suppose to be a quart, and we went behind the court-house. I took the first drink, and then Moon and the Judge drank the balance. Q. A quart of what? A. A quart of whisky. Q. What time was this-? A. This was when they adjourned for noon. Q. State whether Moon’s trial was in progress then. A. It was. Q. Did you drink any more whisky with him? A. Yes, sir; Moon says, “That is not enough, we must have some more ;” and he went and got what I suppose to be a pint; it looked about that size. And they drank it. Q. Did you see the Judge and Moon together any more during that dayf* A. Yes, sir; after court adjourned for supper, 228 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Q. Where did you see them? A. We were around the drug store. Q. What conversation did you hear at noon? A. Why, Moon, says he, “I am afraid of some of them jurymen, Judge.” The Judge said, “You needn’t be uneasy about that — I am judge of this district, Moon; you are all right.” And here is what J. R. Fields, another witness, who was present at the Moon trial, says. First stating that he had seen Judge Botkin drink whisky at that January term, and during the pendency of the Moon trial, he then testified (pages 554 and 555) as follows: Q. State what took place. A. Well, sir, we went round behind the court- room, and Mr. Moon had a bottle of liquor in his pocket, and he took it out and reached it out to the Judge, and the Judge took a drink out of it and handed it back to Mr. Moon, and Moon passed it over to me. ^ gj, Q. Was there any conversation between Judge Botkin and Mr. Moon? A. There was, sir. . . . Well, Ed. Moon said to Judge Botkin, he said, “Judge, what do you think the jury will do with me?” And the Judge replied, “It doesn’t make a damned bit of difference what the jury does, I will clear you anyway.” Q. Was that all? A. That is all Mr. Botkin said to Mr. Moon, except he said, “Fow get to the jury and give them some.” Q. What was Judge Botkin’s condition at that time so far as sobriety was concerned? A. Oh, I don’t think the Judge was so awful drunk. This testimony was not contradicted. Judge Botkin was present and heard both Mr. Beeve and Mr. Fields testify, and he dared not contradict them. Here was a man on trial before Judge Botkin charged with a penitentiary offense, drinking whisky with the Judge, and advised by the Judge to give whisky to the jury, and profanely telling the criminal before him that it made “no dif- ference” what the jury might do, that he, the Judge fytoxAd clear him anyway. □ Nothing but a partisan Republican Senate, looking farther than Judge Botkin and seeing somebody else in peril, could ever have voted that Botkin was “not guilty.” It will be remembered that article four charged that Judge Botkin, 'in Au- gust, 1890, “on the streets and in public places in the city of Leoti, in Wichita county, was drunk and under the influence of intoxicating liquors, and was engaged in a drunken and boisterous quarrel on said streets and in said pub- lic places, and was then and there so disorderly that he had to be taken off said streets by the sheriff to prevent a further disturbance of the peace,” and that the Senate sustained the demurrer to this article, holding that it was no impeachable offense for'a” district judge to be and become a drunken fool and debauchee outside of his judicial district. At a later day, the Board of Managers called Col. Emmett Callahan, a prominent Republican attorney of Sedgwick county, and asked him to tell about Judge Botkin’s being drunk at Wichita during the political campaign of 189Q, and at a time when Botkin had been billed for a speech at a Republican meeting at Wichita. Botkin’s THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 229 counsel objected, because the alleged drunkenness occurred outside of Botkin's judicial district. After a good deal of discussion (Impeachment Trial, pp. 512-520), the following appears: Me. Webb: I heard General Bradford’s statement, and I propose to make my offer in my own way, unless the Senate says I shall not. The State now offers to prove by the witness on the stand, and by other witnesses whom we shall place on the stand, that the respondent was drunk in the city of Wichita in August, 1890, and in the months of August, September and October of the year 1890; that he was drunk at Dodge City, and Anthony, and Garden City, and at several other places in the State outside of his judicial district; and all within a period of about four months; and all in support of article seven. Article seven charged that Judge Botkin “had been an habitual user of in- toxicating liquors to such excess as to incapacitate him for a clear-minded discharge of his judicial functions.” The Board of Managers did not see why beastly drunkenness, outside of Botkin’s district, oft repeated, did not tend to prove the seventh article as much as like drunkenness at home. But an over-wise Republican Senate, adhering to its absurd decision made in sustain- ing the demurrer to the fourth article, by a vote of yeas 12, nays 14, (less than a quorum voting,) refused to permit Col. Callahan, or any other witness, to testify to the facts embraced in Mr. Webb’s offer. These fourteen Senators who voted in the negative were: Bentley, Buchan, Howard, Johnson, Kelly of McPherson, Lockard, Murdock, Osborn, Richter, Roe, Schilling, Senior, Tucker, and Wright. (Impeachment Trial, page 524.) But before leaving the question of Judge Botkin’s drunkenness, and con- stant use of intoxicating liquors, it is well to remember what his own wit- nesses testified to. Here is what the men said who were called before the Senate by Judge Botkin to vindicate his character for sobriety. In all cases it appeared that the “drink” of which Judge Botkin partook was some kind of an intoxicant: H. E. Evans drank with the Judge; Peter Bowers drank with the Judge; J. W. Gordon saw him drink whisky; J. B. Palmer mixed hot water and lemon with whisky for him; W. E. Hutchison saw him drink whisky on the road to Shockey’s, and also in Topeka; J. A. Buckles drank whisky with the Judge; Silsby Stevens drank with the Judge; W. F. Collins and W. H. Buckles drank liquor with him in Seward county; L. A. Etzold drank liquor with the Judge in the Arkalon joint, the Judge buying the liquor; G. S. Stein saw him drink in the Arkalon joint; E. M. Campbell drank frequently with the Judge; W. R. Henline crawled into the back window of the joint with the Judge, and drank whisky with him; T. A. Scates saw the Judge drink whisky; E. R. Ragland and A. T. Ragland drank whisky with the Judge; J. H. Pitzer drank whisky in the joint with the Judge; F. E. Griffith drank whisky in the joint with the Judge; Mr. Hannan drank whisky with the Judge. Mr. Hack- ney testified that everywhere he and Judge Botkin were, there was always —14 230 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . plenty of liquors to drink, and it was freely drunk. J. F. Gray drank whisky with the Judge; Joseph Rosenthal drank whisky with the Judge, and testified that while his forgery case — Rosenthal being charged with forgery — was pending before the Judge, that the Judge drank whisky several times with him. J. A. Miller saw the Judge drink whisky, peppermint, paregoric and cap- sicum on several occasions; and D. P. Johnson, the county commissioner, drank whisky with the Judge, and carried it to him. This man was put on the stand by Hackney to testify to the wonderfully temperate habits of this judge, and he testified that he had actually got up early in the morning and car- ried whisky to the Judge before he had opened his eyes. Frank Weir drank whisky with the Judge; J. E. Kelley drank whisky with the Judge; W. L. Walker drank whisky with the Judge; Thomas Cooper drank whisky with the Judge; J. C. Kilburn drank whisky with the Judge; G. H. Neumeyer drank whisky with the Judge; and G. D. Sloan drank reduced alcohol with him. And Mrs. Palmer, wife of the landlord of the “Hotel Hoisington,” at Ulysses, found two whisky bottles in Judge Botkin’s bed at said hotel at the April term of court, 1890. And all these persons were witnesses for Judge Botkin at his trial on impeachment before the Senate. The testimony overwhelmingly sustained the first, second, third and seventh articles, all relating to drunkenness by Judge Botkin. It also sustained the fifth and sixth articles, but as the demurrer had been sustained as to them, no vote was taken on them. Nor was any vote taken upon the fourth article for the same reason, and the Senate refused to listen to any evidence proving Judge Botkin’s drunkenness and debauchery in Wichita county, which was outside of his judicial district. On the first, second and third articles, respect- ively, thirty-five Senators voted “not guilty;” four Senators, Buchan, John- son, Kirkpatrick, and Martin, were absent. (It will be remembered that Mr. Wilson, of the Fortieth District, had resigned.) It will be remembered that the “demurrer,” admitting the truth of these first, second and third articles, was overruled. The four Senators who were absent on the final vote were also all absent when the vote on the demurrer was taken. On the first article, 23 Senators voted to overrule the demurrer, holding that the article was good. These same 23 Senators voted “ not guilty ” after hearing the evidence — a most marvelous change of sentiment! The demurrer admitted the truth of the charge, the evidence proved the absolute truth of the charge, yet 23 Senators practically changed their views with their votes, or they could not have voted “not guilty.” On the second article, 22 Senators voted to override the demurrer. These same 22 Senators voted “not guilty” after hearing the evidence. On the third article, 32 Senators voted to overrule the demurrer; and these same 32 Senators voted “not guilty” after THE BOTKIN TRIAL. 231 hearing the evidence. In each case the change is as wonderful and unaccount- able as that respecting the first article. The seventh article practically charged that J udge Botkin had become so besotted as to be incapable of properly performing the judicial functions of his office. On this article the vote was — Guilty — Senators Harkness, Hays, King, Long, McTaggart, Rankin, Rush, and Wheeler — 8. Not Guilty — 26. Absent , 4; and Senator Kimball excused from voting. The only Senator who explained his vote on the seventh article was Sena- tor Harkness, of Clay county. His understanding of the testimony and its effect as evidence is so clear, and his reasons are so cogent, that they should be pondered by everybody. (Impeachment Trial, pp. 1384 and 1385.) Senator Harkness: . . . It is charged that the respondent has been an habitual user of intoxicating liquors, and it occurs to me, sitting as one of the triers in this case, that this charge has been conclusively established by the evidence. Of the vast number of witnesses that have been placed upon the stand during this trial, there are very few who have not testified to the habits of the respondent with reference to the use of intoxicating liquors. Witnesses for the State and witnesses for the respondent testify to his con- stant use of liquors. Proof has been introduced as to his habits in this re- spect throughout his district, during the time when court was in session, and at various other times; and I can only ascribe his conduct in these later years, as shown by the evidence in this case, to his habits and indulgence to excess in the use of intoxicating liquors. His obscenity, his profanity, his conduct upon the bench, as testified to by many witnesses, were not dictated by the noble heart and the generous nature of Theodosius Botkin, the soldier boy; but I can ascribe these things only to the feverish brain and abnormal con- dition occasioned by the habits he has formed in later years. Charity, as well as my deliberate judgment, leads me to believe that the unlawful, oppress- ive and inexcusable acts, concerning which evidence has been introduced, in many instances were due to that unfortunate habit, and the physical and mental condition resulting therefrom; that many of the things charged against him would never have occurred but for the fact that he had, by the constant and excessive use of liquors, incapacitated himself for a clear- minded discharge of his duties. Here is a prominent Republican Senator frankly confessing that every claim made by the State, respecting Judge Botkin’s unfitness for the bench by reason of his continuous drunkenness, was fully proven; and yet Senators Bentley, Berry, Emery, Gillett, Kelley of Crawford, Kelly of McPherson, Lock- ard, Mechem, Moody, Murdock, Osborn, Richter, Roe, Schilling, and Wright, who had voted to overrule the demurrer to this same seventh article, having heard this same testimony which Senator Harkness so clearly presents as conclusively proving the article, changed sides and voted “not guilty.” Let the people remember these matters. The eighth article charges that Judge Botkin was guilty of most terrible 232 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. and shocking blasphemy. It is sufficient to quote from the testimony of two witnesses respecting this charge: H. F. Millikan, register of deeds of Haskell county (Impeachment Trial, p. 337 ), testified that he had known Judge Botkin for more than three years; that at Santa Fe, in Haskell county, in July, 1890, he saw Judge Botkin “come out of a place where it is reported that whisky is sold — come out on the cor- ner of the public street, and the first thing that I heard him say, there was a lot of ‘God-damned sons-of-bitches in this town who have’nt got any more sense than jackasses, and every one ought to be killed,’ and went on at a ter- rible rate. I know he said those words.” And at page 338 Mr. Millikan testified that in January, 1891, he attended the court at Springfield, in Seward county; that on that occasion he saw Judge Botkin in Shortman co oc •i*' to each 100 miles of road operated, with an estimate of the annual wages paid all employes, except salaries TRANSPORTATION. LZVo. 660 18 1 2 2 2 3 2 96 1 96. 7 14 200 350 28 115 632 « * 272 266 300 400 300 292 200 265 273 104 300 300 376 268 295 283 340 406 No. 1,054 25 2 4 2 3 3 2 201 1 191 12 22 217 702 53 237 1,219 U to vf * Cfc. 189 159 200 162 211 175 200 250 163 238 203 203 171 170 191 187 213 270 ui I iVo. 451 6 88 ‘i’27' 10 115 528 42 53 684 3 p CTQ cd tn Cts. 251 168 100 261 198 276 247 201 204 228 278 290 v S. 5 D to o 53’ 3*0 to o No. 318 12 2 2 1 2 2 104 61 1 8 206 349 20 96 470 « to * so orq cd so C7s. 184 130 201 200 133 142 150 161 198 368 290 190 174 199 211 281 GENERAL. CD n P? co crq CD d CD iVo. 785 “”7 116 2 287 3 23 242 447 32 123 797 « to t S3 to era CD CO Cfc. 222 301 231 192 237 118 191 229 115 136 295 212 H cd © b * l-d •3 i CD to o-cr CD 0 to CT5 CD 1 3 O CD <-i No. 16,052 904 44 120 75 36 45 8,1*58 36 3,273 212 361 5,192 9,797 914 3,632 21,720 55 II CD d* CO CD * B o'? os © O ^ CD Hj to to CD P*o : o No. 292 96 77 96 199 43 69 50 202 112 490 121 154 293 311 235 274 280 Total estimated annual pay of all wage- workers. In Dollars. ,456,524 412,240 23,749 59,472 45,874 22,665 27,531 21,779 ,542,948 10,817 ,940,472 110,307 194,940 ,823,930 ,908,977 475,877 ,096,018 ,163,249 1 (oj- (*>) (0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (d) 13 14 i A 5,229 3,950 2,108 1,654 2,864 65,801 272 37,337,369 * 62 300 135 175 18 130 17 215 68 177 2,423 232 1,210,674 17 ! 36 309 60 219 20 190 10 239 52 186 1,108 216 626,852 18 538 325 1,059 208 1,053 218 536 182 977 176 17,460 359 10,072,993 19 566 318 1,132 185 398 169 498 187 732 175 15,559 274 9,979,640 20 607 299 1,295 189 982 197 438 207 419 225 16,793 394 10,115,167 21 340 265 831 154 577 174 696 184 403 235 11,538 354 5,312,869 22 1 77 319 155 204 145 200 65 211 120 206 3,308 641 1,997,899 23 70 327 122 211 55 256 67 285 132 205 1,935 233 1,210,594 24 132 306 290 193 165 210 131 219 132 240 4,395 316 2,532,825 25 49 283 107 121 100 173 53 167 51 245 1,774 296 921,121 26 j 28 247 63 155 63 214 34 165 84 128 1,326 421 729,959 27 9 287 18 152 5 240 15 194 10 243 318 215 164,694 28 24 300 55 220 28 261 27 215 32 218 869 236 . 495,051 29 13 348 33 232 10 201 7 191 10 220 345 238 198,611 30 ! 11 287 24 186 28 211 13 207 36 288 609 569 366,375 31 113 310 242 190 64 198 119 169 310 250 3,650 364 2,408,723 32 i fc.675 5,621 3,711 2,326 3,568 83,410 333 48,344,047 i Branch lines of the Union Pacific (Junction City & Fort Kearney, Omaha & Republican Val- y, St. Joseph & Grand Island, Solomon, Union Pacific, Lincoln & Colorado) included, and men iployed thereon are embraced in report of main line above given. Thb 1,124 miles credited to the Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska include trackage rights over the iioh Pacific from Kansas City to Topeka. OFFICIAL DIRECTORY . 279 Rice, Barton, Stafford, Pratt, Barber, Comanche, Kiowa, Edwards, Pawnee, Rush, Ness, Hodge- man, Ford, Clark, Meade, Gray, Garfield, Lane, Scott, Finney, Haskell, Seward, Stevens, Grant, Kearny, Wichita, Greeley, Hamilton, Stanton, and Morton. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. STATE OFFICIALS. Office. Name . Post office. County. Governor Lieutenant Governor. Secretary of State Treasurer of State Auditor of State Attorney General Lyman U. Humphrey Andrew J. Felt William Higgins.. Solomon G. Stover Charles M. Hovey John N. Ives Independence Seneca Topeka Belleville Colby Sterling Montgomery. Nemaha. Shawnee. Republic. Thomas. Rice. Geary. Franklin. Supt. Public Instruction... State Printer George W. Winans Edwin H. Snow Junction City Ottawa LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. ( For members of the Senate, see page 187 of this volume.) MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN TATIYES. District. Name. Post office. County. Politics . 1 James D. Williamson Troy Doniphan Republican. 2 John Seaton Atchison Atchison Republican. 3 R. p. Fisher Effingham Atchison Populist. 4 Charles H. Phinney McLouth Jefferson Republican. 5 M. Reckards Thompson vi lie Jefferson Populist. 6 Fred W. Willard Leavenworth Leaven wort h Republican 7 S. F. Neeley Leavenworth Leaven wort h Democrat. 8 T. C. Craig Easton Leavenworth. Democrat. 9 F. M. Gable.. , Lansing Leavenworth... . Democrat. 10 J. 0. Milner Kansas City Wyandotte.../ Democrat. 11 A. A. Burgard Muncie Wyandotte Democrat. 12 C. M. Dickson Edgerton Johnson Populist. 13 C. N. Bishoff. Eudora Douglas Republican. 14 N. Simmons Lawrence Douglas Republican. 15 P. P. Elder Princeton * Franklin Populist. 16 J. P. Stephens Wellsville Franklin Populist. 17 J. B. Coons Spring Hill, J’hns’n Miami Populist. 18 J, B. Remington Osawatomie Miami Republican. 19 J. W. Tucker Pleasanton Linn Populist. 20 J. M. Alexander Welda. Anderson Populist. 21 L. B. Pearson Humboldt Allen Republican. 22 Wm. M. Rice Fort Scott Bourbon Republican. 23 B. F. Fortney Marmaton Bourbon Populist. 24 H. M. Reid Cherokee Crawford Populist. 25 A. J. Cory Hadley Crawford Populist. 26. J. H. Chubb Baxter Springs Cherokee Populist. 27 J. T. Jones Scammonville Cherokee Populist. 28 J. I. Tanner Mound Valley Labette Populist. 29 P. A. Morrison Oswego Labette Populist. 30 Alex. Duncan A ngola Labette Populist. 31 Samuel Henry Independence Montgomery , Populist. 280 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Continued . District. Name. Post office. County. Politics. 32 A. L. Scott Neodesha, Wilson.. Montgomery Populist. 33 George F. Smith Osage Mission Neosho Populist. 34 M. A. Clover... Chanute Neosho Populist. 35 A . Z. Brown Guilford Wilson... Populist. 36 Robert B. Reedy Neosho Falls Woodson Populist. 37 0. M. Rice Agricola Coffey Populist. 38 David Shull Scranton Osage Populist. 39 Robert W. Lewis Barclay Osage Populist. 40 D M. Howard North Topeka Shawnee Populist. 41 William C. Webb Topeka Shawnee Republican. 42 F. M. Stahl Auburn Shawnee Republican. 43 P. H. Steward Hoyt Jackson Populist. 44 J. D. Hardy Hiawatha Brown Populist. 45 D. R, MeCliman Wood Lawn Nemaha Populist. 46 Ezra Carey Corning Nemaha Populist. 47 Wellington Doty. Oketo Marshall Populist. 48 Marion Patterson Blue Rapids Marshall Populist. 49 .T. R. Sonpene Manhattan, Riley.. Pottawatomie Populist. 50 C. F. Hardick Louisville.. Pottawatomie Populist. 51 Josephus Hamer Leonardville Riley Populist. 52 T. M. Templeton Wreford Geary Populist. 53...., John Rehrig Eskridge Wabaunsee Populist. S B Wa,rren Emporia Lyon Republican. 55 Devi Diimbauld Hartford Lyon Populist. 56 John Bryden Eureka Greenwood Populist. 57 Geo W. Crumley Grenola Elk Populist. 58 Jason Helmick Cloverdale Chautauqua Populist. 59 .Taeoh Nixon Winfield Cowley Republican. 60 .T. R. Andrews Arkansas City Cowley Populist. 61 R. .R Davidson Eatonville... Cowley Populist. 63 John H arte n bower Douglass Butler Populist. 03 O. W r .Tones Augusta Butler Populist. 64 .T S Doolittle . ... ... .. Cottonwood Falls .. Chase Populist. 65 Dallas Rogers .. Marion Marion Populist. 66 E W Maxwell Peabody Marion Populist. 67 Charles Drake Council Grove....... Morris Populist. 68 H. C. Harvey Manchester Dickinson Populist. 69 M Senn Enterprise Dickinson Populist. 70 A A Newman Clay Center Clay Populist. 71 D. M. Watson Enosdale Washington Populist. 72 Wm Rodgers Barnes Washington Populist. 73 J T T. Tngram Republic City Republic Populist. 74 n R Cleveland Agenda Republic Populist. 75 O S Fverly Meredith Cloud Populist. 76 D S Steele Glasco Cloud Populist. 77 George MeConkey Minneapolis Ottawa Populist. 7 8 P H Dolan Salina.. Saline Populist. 79 J B Maddox Canton McPherson Populist. 80 Fred .Taekson McPherson McPherson Populist. 81 W E Brown Newton Harvev Republican. 82 (Jeo Ti Douglass Wichita Sedgwick Republican. 83 R W Hurt Maize Sedgwick Populist. 84 H W Ruble Greenwich Sedgwick Populist. 85 C- E Meeker Belle Plaine Sumner Populist. 86 John T Sho waiter Wellington... Sumner Republican. 87 J M Don hied ay Caldwell Sumner Populist. 88 CJer» IT Cnnlsen Anthony Harper Populist. 89 TnVin Dav Kingman Kingman Populist. 90 F W Hinkox Medicine Lodge Barber Populist. 91 T C Rearson Coats Pratt Populist. 92 H. D. Freeman Hutchinson... Reno ! Populist. OFFICIAL DIRECTORY . 281 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPBESENTATIVES Concluded. District. Name. Post office. County. Politics. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100 . 101 . 102 . 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110 . 111 . 112 . 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120 . 121 . 122 . 123. 124. 125. *.... *.... * * * * W. H. Mitchell Wm. Campbell M. W. Cobun W. M. Kenton Wm. W. Stanley Otis L. Atherton A. N. Whittington... G. H. McKinnie Benj. Matchett E. F. Barnett C. C. Vandeventer... Geo. E. Smith P. C. Wagoner Beuben Bowse J. H. Beeder John Lovett A. H. Lupfer D. G. Donovan Geo. W. Hollenback B. F. Morris .... A. H. Heber Geo. M. Hoover S. B. Gillmore I. N. Goodvin W. F. King W. H. Milligan W. Hicks Dan Caster W. J. Barnes W. B. Hopkins Charles Vail E. D. York Alfred Pratt Isaac T. Purcell Fred. C. Yearick W. L. Cook John K. Laycock W. E. Hotchkiss Benj. H. Albertson.. W. J. Chubbuck I. F. Poston A. S. Beeler W. M. Speck C. G. Wilson L. S. Boyer C. E. Lobdell Joseph W. Young..., David Holmes J. W. Tout T. H. Vincent G. M. Smith John Megaffin Huntsville Pelton Hoisington....... Baymond Ellsworth Bussell Lincoln Beloit . Bloomington.... Ezbon Jewell City Germantown.... Logan Plainville Hays City McCracken Larned Belpre Cold water Lexington Meade Dodge City Kidderville Banson Wakeeney Fagan Bock well City.. Oberlin Hoxie Garden City Colby Atwood Syracuse Grainfield La Blanche Oakley Sharon Springs. Wheeler Haviland Leoti Liberal.. Lafayette Bavanna Horace ... Scott City. Dighton Bichfield Shockey Johnson City.... Cimarron Hartland. Ivanhoe Beno Stafford Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Bepublican. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Populist. Bepublican. Populist. Populist. Populist. Bepublican. Populist. Populist. Democrat. Populist. Bepublican. Populist. Bepublican. Bepublican. Barton Bice Ellsworth Bussell Lincoln Mitchell Osborne Jewell Jewell Smith Phillips Books Ellis Bush Pawnee Edwards Comanche Clark Meade Ford Hodgeman... Ness Trego Graham Norton Decatur Sheridan Finney Thomas Bawlins Hamilton Gove Sherman Logan Wallace Cheyenne Kiowa Wichita Seward Stevens Garfield Greeley.... Scott Lane Morton Grant Stanton. Gray Kearny Haskell * Delegates from counties unorganized when apportionment was made in 1886. These Delegates were allowed per diem, mileage, and privileges of the floor, but had no vote. Under the apportionment of 1891, each of these counties, save Morton and Garfield, will be entitled to one representative. 282 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE. Name. Post office. County. P. P. Elder, Speaker Princeton Franklin. Benj. Matchett, Speaker pro tem Osborne Osborne. Ben. C. Rich, Chief Clerk Ogallah Trego. Thomas. Jas. H. Fort, Assistant Chief Clerk Colby D. W. Jacobs, Journal Clerk Osage Mission... Neosho. L. C. Soupene, Docket Clerk Manhattan Riley. Jackson. J. R. Las well, Postmaster Adrian S. W. Chase, Sergeant-at-Arms Winfield Cowley. Grant. T. 0. Harter, Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Ulysses D. 0. Markey, Reading Clerk Mound City... Linn. J. G. Meferin, Chaplain Melvern Osage. Leavenworth. •T. F. Gable, Document Clerk Leaven worth Jacob Campbell, Doorkeeper Minneapolis Ottawa. JUDICIAL. SUPREME COURT. * Office. Name. Post office. County. Chief Justice. Albert H. Horton Topeka Shawnee. Associate Justice D. M. Valentine Ottawa Franklin. Associate Justice W. A. Johnston Minneapolis Ottawa. Commissioner Benj. F. Simpson Paola Miami. Commissioner George S. Green Manhattan Riley. Commissioner J. C. Strang Larned Pawnee. Clerk C. J. Brown Blue Rapids Marshall. Reporter A. M. F. Randolph Topeka Shawnee. Regular terms begin first Tuesdays in January and July. Notice of the time of bolding special or adjourned terms must be given by publication for twenty days in a newspaper pub- lished at’ the State capital. KANSAS REFORM PRESS, Corrected to September 1st, by the Nonconformist. Alliance Monitor Abilene. Tidings Allen. News Alma. Plaindealer Almena. Weekly World Altamont. Labor Review Argentine. Fair Play . Arkansas City. Dispatch .Arkansas City. Clark County Clipper Ashland. Advocate Attica. Rawlins Democrat Atwood. Times Atwood. Freeman Belleville. Western Call Beloit. Monitor Blue Rapids. Courier Burlington. Times Burlingame. Free Lance Burrton. Blade Chanute. Weekly Sun Clay Center. Pentecost Trumpet Clay Center. Farmers’ Voice Clyde. Free-Press Colby. People’s Advocate Cold water. Modern Light Columbus. Alliant ;. Concordia. Alliance Herald Council Grove. Alliance Sun Cuba. Lane County Farmer Dighton. Courier Dunlap. Industrial Advocate El Dorado. Standard Emporia. Gazette Emporia. Sentinel.... Erie. Alliance Union Eureka. Times Fall River. Sentinel .Frankfort. Rice County News Frederick. Alliance Herald Fredonia. Lantern Fort Scott. Times Galena. Times Galva. Tax-Payer Garden City. Agitator Garnett. Journal Garnett. Western Herald Girard. People’s Sentinel Glen Elder. Beacon Great Bend. News Greeley. Alliance Reporter Greensburg. Sherman County Farmer Qoodland. Republican Goodland. Tribune Halstead. Alliance Bulletin Harper. Reveille Haviland. Independent Free Press Signal Journal People’s Advocate Independent Tribune.... Citizen Times Alliance Gazette Star and Kansan Farmers’ Friend Tribune Sun Kronicle Journal Graphic Alliance Review Independent Economist Leader Register Jeffersonian Journal Western Kansan Review Beacon Lincoln County Farmer. Leader Times... People’s Herald Rice County Eagle Independent Nationalist Globe Republican Western Advocate Central Advocate People’s Advocate People’s Advocate Barber County Index.... People’s Press News Ottawa County Index.... Torch of Liberty New Era Alliance Times Kansas Patron Times Osborne' County News... Labette Statesman Journal Times Kansas Alliance Daily Eli Farmers’ Lance ( 283 ) .Haven. .Hays City. .Herington. .Hiawatha. .Hill City. .Holton. .Howard. .Huron. .Hutchinson. .Independence. .Iola. .Junction City. .Kansas City, Ks. .Kincaid. .Kingman. .Kinsley. .Kiowa. .Kirwin. .La Crosse. .Lane. .Lamborn. .Lawrence. .Lebanon. .Leoti. .Liberty. .Lincoln. .Lincoln. .Long Island. .Louisville. .Lyndon. .Lyons. .Macksville. .Meade. .Meade. .Manhattan. .Mankato. .Marion. Marysville. .McPherson. .Medicine Lodge. .Milan. .Miltonvale,. .Minneapolis. Mound City. Norton. Oberlin. Olathe. Osage City. Osborne. Oswego. Ottawa. .Paola. .Parsons. .Parsons. .Peru. 284 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . KANSAS REFORM PRESS — Concluded. Kansan Herald County Union..... Press Exponent Union Herald Salina. Scott County Lever Gazette News Telegram Alliance Echo Smith County Journal Index.... New Era Champion County Capital Star Alliance Signal Weekly Sentinel Kansas Farmer Topeka. Alliance Tribune Topeka. Advocate Topeka. Farmer’s Wife Topeka. Herald Towanda . Greeley County Journal Tribune. Headlight Turon. Plainsman Ulysses. Farmers’ Vindicator Valley Falls. Republican Washington. People’s Voice Wellington. Alliance News Westmoreland. Times Westphalia. Commoner Wichita. Leader Wichita. Free Press Winfield. Economic Quarterly. Winfield. Telegram Winfield. Sentinel Woodsdale. Farmers’ Advocate Yates Center. INDEX Alien ownership of land Andrews, J. L Attorneys before Coffeyville committee. Affidavit, Thomas Robertson Age-of-consent bill and vote PAGE. 16 93 98 257 .262-264 Banking law 16 Barlow, Lucy 131 y 150, 171 Beard, V. A 137, 139, 140, 147 Botkin’s district, to abolish 12, 21 Botkin investigated 21 Impeached 188, 195, 196, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 210, 211, 212 Bonebrake, P. 1 133 Board of Managers v 188 Booth, Henry 113 Record 259 Brown, J. O., alias C. A. Henrie 164, 165 Brown of Harvey i 6 Brown of Wilson 9 Bribery, prohibition of. 6, 19 Buchan, W. J 25, 209 Campbell, W. M.......... Campbell, George Capper, Arthur Topeka Capital Carey, Ezra Carroll, Senator Ed Carter, J. W Chinch-bugs, destruction of. Cloud county resolutions Cobun, M. W Coffeyville investigation...... Constitutional convention... Cougher, J. G Cougher, Mrs. J. G Committee on Judiciary Railroads..... Education Coulson, Geo. H Coons, J. B Credit of the State 85, 259 95 112, 150, 172, 173 257 97, 131 93, 96, 157-159 139, 140, 147 16 259 13 21, 92-186 16 120 119, 120-130 9, 10 11, 12 11 188 188 23 ( 285 ) 286 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Care, Sid r Cummings, J. F . 113, 131, 132, Curfman, H. U 139, 140, Dawes, F. B .*. Delinquent tax sales Doolittle* J. S 1 6, 7, 9, Douglass, Geo 6, 10, Drunkenness in officials, to punish Dynamite investigating committee, who Elder, P. P 8, Eight-hour law Expenses, Senate and House compared Emory, E. B 139, 140, Fortney, B. F Forestry stations -. Forgery of Senator Kimball $j£| French, Edwin 116, 131, 132, Greer, Ed. P 92, Portrait Gebhardt, W. A -. . Harkness, Senator F. P 22, Hackney, W. P 188, Henrie, C. A ...92, 106, 113, 115, 117, 119, 123, 125, 126, 133, 134, 135, 153, 179, 184, Portrait ...... Henthorn, J. W 106, Henderson, B. S Howard ...7, “Honorary certificate” House bill No. 1, (Douglass) * 2, (Douglass).. 17, ( Brown of Harvey) 21, (Showalter) 61, (Howard) 62, (Howard) 69, ( Doolittle) . 103, (Vandeventer) 120, (Peed) 125, (Maddox) 126, (Smith of Smith*) : 132, (Elder) , 133, (Elder) 134, (Elder) 139, (Elder) 145, (Smith of Neosho) 212, (Maddox) 225, ( Brown of Wilson) 264, ( Howard ) . 152 150 147 98 16 10 188 121 97 12 16 23 147 11 16 93 151 153 154 147 23 194 186 181 153 98 8 180 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 INDEX. 287 House bill No. 279, (Soupene) 339, (Whittington) 348, ( Doolittle) 436, (Judiciary Committee) 479, (Doolittle) 540, (Judiciary Committee) 577, ( Douglass) 604, ( Stephens) 606, (Doolittle) 692, (Stewart) 693, (Neeley) 696, ( Fortney) 698, (Rogers of Marion) 707, ( Railroad Committee) 712, (Committee on Education). 718, (Scott) 743, (Committee on Railroads).. 833, (Elder) 842, (Elder) Hutchins, Bion S 92, Hudson, J. K Humphrey, L. U., (Governor) 18, 184, Hutchinson forged resolutions : Huntington letters Interest drain Ives, J. N Judiciary Committee 9, Jones, Lee Kelley, Senator M. C Kelly, Senator H. B Kimball, Senator C. H., 22, 93, 94, 104, 105, 107, 110, 113, 119, 130, 131, 134, 135, 148, 156, Larned Weekly Optic ! Lotteries, to prevent... Lockard, Senator J. B Martin, John A. (Gov.) Mackey, A. M Maddox 7, Metsker, D. C '. Mohler, Senator J. G 97, 159, Mitchell, W. H McCray, D. O Ill, 150, 173, Mortgage indebtedness — Marshall county Miami county Lyon county Sedgwick county Harper county 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 153 133 185 257 277 268 188 10 147 23 263 208 260 20 92 133 188 9 133 160 188 176 265 265 266 267 267 288 POPULIST HAND-BOOK . Mortgage indebtedness — Marion county . 267 Pratt county 267 Moody, Senator Joel 11, 23 Murdock, Senator T. B 23, 94 Mortgages paid, how r 268 Neeley *....* 11 Official State Directory 268 Parks, David . 146 Parties in 1890 5 Petitions for impeachment of Judge Botkin 196 People’s manifesto 14, 24 Pinkerton thugs . 19 Populist platform 5 Pooling among live-stock buyers . 16 Poorman, Geo. W 163, 164 Populist newspapers 283 Railroad bill, No. 707 11 Railroad bill, No. 743 .* ; ....11 , 31-46 Sec. 1. Shall not charge higher 31 Classification 31 Sec. 2. Compensation limited.. 32 Sec. 3. Commissioners, when elected, how elected, give bonds 32 Sec. 4. Office and salaries 33 Sec. 5. Districts 33 Sec. 6. Railroad companies must adjust rates 33 Sec. 7. Commissioners shall hear complaints 33 Attorney General appear for theJState 34 Sec. 8. Continuous session 34 Sec. 9. Penalty for refusal to comply with provisions of this act 34 Sec. 10. Mandamus to compel obedience 35 Sec. 11. Yearly re-classification 35 Short and long hauls 36 Sec. 12. Commissioners shall investigate 36 Sec. 13. Companies shall answer under oath 36 Refusal a contempt 37 Sec. 14. Witnesses must appear 37 Sec. 15. Schedule and classification .’ 37-41 Sec. 16. Articles not enumerated 42 Sec. 17. Roads in class B 42 Sec. 18. Obedience shall be compelled 43 Sec. 19. Commissioners shall publish maximum rates 43 Sec. 20. Railroad companies shall furnish station facilities. 44 Sec. 21. Appropriation to cover expenses of 44 Sec. 22. Commissioners shall report to the Legislature; what the report shall show 44-46 Sec. 23. Test cases shall be preferred 46 Sec. 24. Switching charges 46 Sec. 25. Clerk and stenographer, seal 46 INDEX . 289 Railroad Committee 11, 12 Railroad tables — see “Tables.” Rates — House bill No. 743 82 By counties— VII, VIII, and IX, compared 83, 84, 85 Commissioners’, reviewed 82 Reasonable .. 48 Joint 21 Reed, H. M 7 Reed, Judge 117, 159 Republican platform 6 Republican losses 190, 191 Reduction of salaries ; 20 Redemption law 10, 18 Redemption (tax sales) 19 Reduction of State expenses 15, 21, 22 Rude, Dr , 1 140, 153 Rodgers of Washington to Buchan 25, 30 Comparisons of appropriations 26 Stacey or Buchan 27 List of deficiencies 28 Appropriation bills 28 Appropriation bills (building) 29 Buchan’s misstatements 30 One million dollars saved 30 World’s Fair bill >. 30 Broken promises :... 30 Rogers of Marion 11 Scott, Frank C 112, 150, 172, 173 Scott *. 12 Senator, United States 15 Silver bill 12, 18 School books, uniform series 21 Senn, M 97, 107, 153 Severance, Hon. John 258 Senate Revision Committee 22 Showalter 7 Smith, G. E. (of Smith) 8 Smith (of Neosho) 8 Soupene _. 9 Soldiers’ statement 258 Stewart 11 Stephens 10 State Printer..... 14, 90 State Board of Pardons, to abolish 20 Sub-treasury Plan * 269-275 Constitutionality 275 Tables— I. Mileage, Railroad Commissioners’ Report for Kansas, 1890 49 I-A. Mileage, Iowa Report, 1889 50 290 POPULIST HAND-BOOK. Tables— II. Freight earnings, Kansas Report, 1890 51 II-A. Freight earnings, Iowa Report, 1889 52 III. Freight earnings, per ton mile and train mile, Kansas Report, 1890 53 III- A. Same for Iowa, Report 1889 54 IV. Showing number of employes, wages paid, cost of maintenance of road-bed, main- tenance of equipment, and cost of operating, Kansas Report, 1890 to face 54 IV- A. Same for Iowa, Report 1889 to face 54 V. Gross earnings, Kansas Report, 1890 55 V-A. Gross earnings, Iowa Report, 1889 56 VI. Operating expenses, Kansas Report, 1890 57 VI-A. Operating expenses, Iowa Report, 1889 57 Comparative review of tables 58, 59, 60 Recapitulation of IV to VI-A 61 VII. Railroad Commissioners, reasonable tariff rates.... 62-67 VIII. Railroad tariff rates now in force 68-73 IX. Railroad tariff rates prescribed by House bill No. 743 74-79 Comparative summary of VII, VIII, and IX 80, 81 Rates per ton mile, all classes of freight, from VII, VIII, and IX 80, 81 Alphabetical comparison by counties 83, 84, 85 Comprehensive tables covering sixteen years’ earnings 86 Freight rates, Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas, compared 87 Typographical error in Senate Journal 159 Transportation 46 United States Senator 15 Usury law .....; 8, 17 Upham, H. M 92, 99, 117, 145, 146, 150 Union Pacific Railroad Report 275 Central Pacific Railroad 276 Stock table 277 Vandeventer, C. C 7, 97 V erdicts of j uries 20 Vincent, C 92, 95, 99, 105, 130, 132 Vincent, H 103, 150, 165 Vincent, L 103 Voting bonds, prohibition of. * 20 Waldrop, I. M 118, 119, 149 Warehouses, inspection, etc 16 Webb, II. G 98, 156, 160, 179 Webb, LelandJ 152, 153 Webb, W. C 188, 194, 195 Whittington, A. N 9, 188 Weekly wages, payment of..... 20 Whitted, C. S 133 Whitley, J. W 133, 152 Winton, Joe P 152 World’s Fair bill 13, 19 Women, right to vote 9, 20 Wood’s manifesto 24 Wood, Dr. J. A 146