Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 81, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 January 1910 — BUT HALLECK VOTED FOR IT. [ARTICLE]

BUT HALLECK VOTED FOR IT.

Republican's Criticism of Public AcIs Faje and Misleading. Whether the new accounting law is a good thing for the taxpayer or not remains to be seen. After the township trustees and county officers Are instructed in its workings and get started off all right it ought not to be very expensive. However, it was not a party measure by any means, and the attempt of some small-bore republican papers to saddle it onto the democrats is very silly. It was prepared in Indianapolis by the Indianapolis business men’s .association, ana .there were more republicans had a hand in its preparation than democrats.' aßoth leading republican and democratic papers favored some such law as this and it could never have been passed by the democrats alone or by thp republicans alone in the last legislature. A uniform system of book-keeping was needed both in county and township offices. Below we copy a few paragraphs of denunciation of the law which appeared in the Rensselaer Republican last week:

“In this matter it might not be amiss to state the position taken on the bill by State Senator A. Halleck. When the bill first reached the senate after it had passed the house, the senate amended it in several particulars. One limited the number of accountants to ten and their pay to $6 per day and expenses, cutting two or three of the high priced overseers of the system who would live fat in Indianapolis at the expense df the tax payers and having the work supervised from the offices of the state -auditor and state treasurer. In this shape It passed the senate and Senator Halleck voted for it. But the house refused to concur in the amendments and the conference committee finally recommended passage in the present form of the law and the senate in its closing days passed the bill, prdvldlng for an unlimited number of accountants at the fat pay of $lO per day and expenses. Senator Halleck voted against the bill in this form and be believes that he will be upheld by nine-tenths of the people of his district. “The original understanding was that»the accounting board was to

go back one year,’ but the governor has practically thrown down tne bars and accountants may come Into Jasper county and spend a year or two if they wish delving into the past records of this county, and all the county* can do is to pay the freight. "Already IttO accountants have been sworn in and more will probably be put to work a little later. “The uniform accounting system could have been put Intb vogue without the employment of any experts and this sort of reform that employs 100 t0'125 men at a daily cost of a thousand to fifteen hundred dollars is sufficient to make the taxpayer sit up and ask the democrats wherefore are we to expect this much proclaimed economy.” Now just why a newspaper will deliberately falsify and misrepresent the facte, simply to bamboozle . its readers, is beyond our ken. The bill did not originate in the House at all, but was known as Senate Bill No. 2, and was presented by Senator Bland, its reputed author. It passed the senate Feb.. 10 by a’ strict party vote, every republican, including Senator Halleck voting for it, and every democrat present voting against it, the vote standing 27 to 22. (See Senate Journal, pages 544-545), and was sent to the House. One democrat was not present, it seems, by the vote, as the senate stood 27 republicans to 23 democrats.

It passed the House without amendment Feb. 20, and the vote there was 76 to 8, Representative Brown from this district, a republican, voting against it. (See House Journal of proceedings of Feb. 20). Mos't of the democrats and most of the republicans of the house voted for the bill. Senator Halleck was connected with the committee on the Senate Journal, and we read in said journal where he reports that his committee ‘‘have examined same and found it correct,” therefore- we must conclude that the Journal does not lie when it says Senator Halleck voted for the bill.

Now, if nine-tenths of his constituency is against the measure, as the Republican states when it says that many will endorce his action in voting against (?) it, they should likewise condemn his action when they learn that the legislative records prove conclusively that he voted for it. Any person wishing to personally investigate the legislative records in this matter will find copies of both the Senate and House journals in the county clerk’s office of their respective counties, and, were it anxious to know or print the truth, we would suggest that the Republican editors also read these journals. The republican press should not be too quick to condemn the law and lay its passage to the democrats, for if it proves a good thing they will want to steal all the glory for themselves, and then their criticisms will come up to haunt them.