REPORT 
 
 MADE TO 
 
 GOVERNOR FRANK B. WILLIS 
 
 GOVERNOR OF OHIO 
 
 By J, P. MAYNARD 
 
 Clerk of the House of Representatives, of the 81st General Assembly 
 
 A Reply to the Criticisms of the Auditor 
 
 of State, Upon General Assemblies 
 of Ohio 
 
 WSCC 
 o ” CoLumBus, Ounio: 
 . fe Tue F..J. Heer Printine Co. 
 
 1916, 
 
— 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 To those persons who received or may have read the report of the 
 Auditor of State, A. V. Donahey, made to the Governor of Ohio, relative 
 to the 8oth, 8ist General Assemblies, and also in many ways relating to 
 other General Assemblies of Ohio, I am sending this report, not for 
 political purposes, not for the purpose of criticising any General As- 
 sembly or any department of state, nor to put the 81st General Assembly 
 in comparison with the 8oth General Assembly, the Constitutional Con- 
 vention or any state department so as to make the 81st General Assembly 
 appear more economical than the others. But what is said in this re- 
 port is to answer Mr. Donahey’s criticisms and if in doing so, the 81st 
 General Assembly makes a good showing, it is simply because the offi- 
 cial records of the state do this and not myself. 
 
 This report was filed with the Printing Commission on April 24th, 
 with the request that the same number of copies be printed as of Mr. 
 Donahey’s report and for the same purposes; which request was not 
 acted upon up to the present date, June 23, 1916. I have therefore with- 
 drawn the request for printing this report and will assume the respon- 
 sibility of it myself. 
 
 No person, either a member of the 81st General Assembly or any 
 other General Assembly, has been asked to pass judgment whether my 
 report is fair or unfair, nor could anyone else pass judgment on Mr. 
 Donahey’s report by the casual reading of it, for permit me to say, it 
 required one month of my time with the able assistance of EK. W. Hughes, 
 Assistant Clerk of the House, and Ella M. Scriven, Recording Clerk 
 of the House, who by reason of ability and experience were able to ren- 
 der valuable assistance in the verification of these figures and facts. 
 
 The figures are taken from the public records. The facts are as 
 well known to the members of the General Assembly as to myself. I 
 submit it to your judgment. 
 
 I do not know from what source Mr. Donahey gathered his state- 
 ments. I do know, however, that nobody connected with his office 
 made any inquiry of any kind from me or any person in my office, nor 
 from anyone connected with the office of the Clerk of the Senate, where 
 much accurate information could have been secured, if desired. 
 
 I find in a publication the following, which my own experience and 
 observation has found to be true: 
 
 “The legislative body thus inaugurated has been an enor- 
 mous factor for good in the onward and forward progress of 
 
 3 
 
4 
 
 Ohio during the past hundred years. No group of men have 
 served the state with so little personal gain as have her legisla- 
 tors. No body of public men has done so much to encourage 
 morality, industry and patriotism. The wonder of it is — not 
 that the legislators have occasionally made personal mistakes — 
 but that no matter what strait or dilemma, Ohio has always had 
 in her service, practically without compensation, so many men who 
 were not only patriots, but nien who exhibited the wisdom and 
 had the courage to handle the affairs of state with honor to them- 
 selves, to their constituents and the name of an Ohioan.” 
 
 Joun P. MAyNArp, 
 Clerk, House of Representatives. 
 
Hon. FrANK B. WILLIS, Governor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 Dear Srr:— There was filed in your office, March 17th, 1916, a 
 report signed by the Honorable A. V. Donahey, Auditor of State, which 
 deals exclusively with the Eightieth: (Cox) and the Eighty-first (Willis) 
 ‘General Assemblies of Ohio. The aforementioned report contains many 
 sensational statements, some of which have been given wide publicity 
 through the press of the state. By reason of such sensational statements, 
 a large number of members of both assemblies have written requesting 
 me to carefully review this report and compare the same with other pub- 
 lic records and report to them and the Governor, the result of my inves- 
 tigation. Permit me to herewith submit for your consideration the 
 result of this examination which has been carefully made with the request 
 also that the same be attached to the Auditor of State’s report. 
 
 In the formation of this report I have endeavored to avoid making 
 any criticism of any General Assembly, any branch thereof or any de- 
 partment of state. I assure you that the duties of my office are such as 
 to prevent the giving of my time to such work, nor have I sufficient infor- 
 mation, nor the inclination to so do. If such criticism be necessary, the 
 press of the state will very properly take care of it— and when they do, 
 if done in the strictest partisan way —it will be far more dependable 
 than this report of the Auditor of State. 
 
 The report of the Auditor of State relative to the expenditures of 
 the General Assemblies, submitted to you March 17th, 1916, is wholly 
 unwarranted and without authority in law. His report of the Eightieth 
 General Assembly should have been made in his annual reports to the 
 Governor in 1913, or 1914, and that of the Eighty-first General Assembly 
 in July, 1915. (Section 253 of the General Code requires such action 
 of the Auditor of State in his annual report. ) 
 
 The statute also required that an inventory of public offices shall be 
 made not more than twenty, nor less than ten days before the retirement 
 of the incumbent in office. A very wise provision which gives the in- 
 coming official the right to know just what state property he shall be 
 responsible for. In the case of my department and the General Assembly, 
 this inventory was not taken until several months after the adjournment 
 of the General Assembly. 
 
 The Auditor of State now knows what we have in our possession, 
 _ but he does not know what we inherited from the Eightieth (or Cox) 
 General Assembly. The law requires that a copy of such inventory be 
 filed with the officer in charge, but such copy has not yet reached this 
 office. 
 
6 
 
 The present General Assembly amended section 253 of the General 
 Code, relative to the auditor’s report and the same became effective in 
 September of last year. It is very specific in the enumeration of all 
 matters that shall be contained in the Auditor of State’s annual report. 
 Nowhere does it contain a hint, even veiled, that the Auditor of State 
 shall suggest, recommend or dictate the work of the General Assembly. 
 
 The section reads as follows: 
 
 “Sec. 253. On or before the first day of August, of each 
 year, the Auditor of State shall make a report of the receipts and 
 disbursements of the state treasury ending the last day of June 
 preceding, the balances of the several funds then in the treasury, 
 the amount of warrants drawn on each fund which remained out- 
 standing, and unexpended balances of all appropriations, and a 
 careful estimate of all ordinary receipts for the year ending the 
 last day of June next following. Such report shall contain a 
 summary statement of the public funded and unfunded indebt- 
 edness of each county, township, city, village and school district, 
 and all other matters required by law.” 
 
 No member of the General Assembly ,has offered an objection to 
 the Auditor of State making a report relative to their official transac- 
 tions, but they do insist that when such report is made that it be made 
 accurate, without bias, not misleading or for political effect but wholly 
 for the public good. 
 
 As before stated, the Auditor of State makes many criticisms, all 
 of which are not based upon fact. However, we are not surprised if 
 they were written with the same feeling of antagonism that actuated 
 the statement found on page 25 in the “Ohio Interrogation Points” which 
 was issued from his office in 1915, without authority in law and was a 
 usurpation of the duties belonging to the State Superintendent of Pub- 
 lic Instruction, which reads as follows: 
 
 “The penitentiary was built first, law breakers being pro- 
 vided for before lawmakers — possibly the builders foresaw the 
 tendency of members of the General Assembly to occupy both.” 
 
 The foregoing statement shows an unpardonable antipathy toward 
 all General Assemblies and carries with it the thought that a large num- 
 ber of the gentlemen elected to serve their constituency in the General 
 Assembly were only given a stepping stone to the penitentiary. 
 
 Some of the best citizens of Ohio have occupied seats in the Ohio 
 General Assembly and their high characters, honesty of purpose and 
 devotion to principle have carried them even to the Presidency of the 
 
7 
 
 United States. I cannot lend myself to the thought that the Auditor 
 of State is responsible for this bitter statement. JI am rather inclined 
 to think that the gentleman who is commonly known as his “press 
 agent” penned these words without thought of the great insult given to 
 hundreds of Ohio’s best citizens, both Democrats and Republicans. 
 
 The issuance of the Auditor’s report relative to the General As- 
 sembly was untimely and unseasonable because there was no demand 
 for such report. As before stated, his report should have been made 
 in 1913 or 1914, or it could have been contained in his partial report 
 of June 30th, 1915. A separate report should have been made of the 
 Eightieth and Eighty-first General Assemblies, for what reason the 
 Auditor of State combined the two reports, I am not advised. He must 
 have had some reason for so doing, perhaps political, but certainly not 
 for the public good. 
 
 Permit me to call your attention to the following pages in which I 
 shall make some comparisons, which will in part at least, reveal the 
 ulterior motive of the Auditor of State in making a combination report 
 of the assemblies separate from his official annual report. Such com- 
 parisons will reveal his misleading, deceptive and inaccurate statements 
 contained in such report which are of such a nature that I am impelled 
 to recommend to your excellency that the whole report of the Auditor 
 herein referred to, be returned to that officer for correction. 
 
 In the report of the Auditor of State, he raises the question of the 
 cost of the General Assemblies, and in so doing, makes an effort to leave 
 the impression with the reader that the Eighty-first (or Willis) General 
 Assembly was very extravagant, and spent the people’s money more 
 lavishly than previous General Assemblies. A careful examination of 
 the records will disclose that the Eighty-first (Willis) General As- 
 sembly was the most economical that has assembled in many years; 
 and had the Auditor of State been fair in his report he would have shown 
 this condition. 
 
 I wish to quote from part of an editorial appearing in the Dayton 
 Daily News, of April 8th, 1916, owned by former Governor James M. 
 Cox, and I do so because the statement is apropos to what follows: 
 
 “In fact the layman could encounter a great many surprises 
 if he would go into the details of almost any. business. There 
 are problems — and expenses — connected with all businesses that 
 the layman knows nothing about nor takes any heed of. If all 
 these things were fully understood by the average man there 
 would be much less criticism in this world and that would prob- 
 ably be better for all of us.” 
 
 The Auditor’s report covers but ten and one-half months of the 
 Fightieth and Eighty-first General Assemblies. What motive prompted 
 
8 
 
 such comparison? The Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly has served 
 its time and adjourned sine die. Its power to expend money has ended, 
 and the records in the Auditor of State’s office should show to a penny 
 the cost of that General Assembly. The Eighty-first (Willis) General 
 Assembly is still alive and will be until January Ist, 1917, and the ex- 
 penses of that body cannot be known until that time, and yet Mr. 
 Donahey in his report says on page 9: : : 
 
 Total cost Eightieth General Assemblyasscetanc eae $271,227 34 
 Total cost Eighty-first General Assembly................ 288 ,986 73 
 
 The foregoing is only one among numerous misleading statements 
 found in the Auditor’s report. If he had issued the report for the 
 public good and acted impartially, without partisan prejudice, he would 
 have given you the exact cost of each General Assembly up to the 
 time he filed his report in your office, March 17, 1916. After his calcu- 
 lations had been made and his report was ready to file he does say in 
 an interlineation : 
 
 “The Extraordinary Session of the 80th General Assembly was 
 held from January 19, 1914, to February 16, 1914, and 
 the: approximate’ cost:to -the: State -waSi-i«s. 0d eageuae $22,000 00.” 
 
 The official records show that this Extraordinary Session cost 
 $38,000.00, and was necessary for the reason that the Eightieth (Cox) 
 General Assembly did not complete its work, and very properly belongs 
 to the expense of the Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly. Why did 
 the Auditor of State not include this expense? Beyond question there 
 was a reason for not doing so. 
 
 Permit me to direct your attention to another fact avoided in the 
 report of the Auditor. The Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly, Regular 
 Session, was in session 112 days in 1913. Taking Mr. Donahey’s figures, 
 it cost the state $2,400 for each day they were in session. The Eighty- 
 first (Willis) General Assembly was in session 143 days, and, according 
 to Mr. Donahey’s figures, cost the state $2,000 a day. The reason for 
 the shorter session of the Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly is at- . 
 tributable only to the fact that Governor Cox had decided upon an extra- 
 ordinary session in the following year for the completion of his pro- 
 gram. In substantiation of this statement, letters and witnesses may be 
 produced to show that promises of such action by Governor Cox were 
 made to members of the General Assembly. The Eighty-first (Willis) 
 General Assembly remained in session until the completion of its pro- 
 gram and adjourned sine die and I express the belief that no extraor- 
 dinary session of -the Eighty-first General Assembly will be called un- 
 less there be some calamity or an unforeseen emergency. 
 
. 
 
 The inquiry would not be impertinent, why the auditor in his in- 
 vestigation did not go back to the year 1912 and include the Constitu- 
 tional Convention, of which he was a member. This Convention was 
 composed of one hundred and nineteen members, four members less 
 than either the Eightieth or Eighty-first House of Representatives. The 
 Convention was in session 148 days, they had a larger number of em- 
 ployes, whose salaries were the same, the character of the work was 
 about the same; requirements in supplies the same and in all respects 
 similar except in name. Its membership was composed of some of the 
 _ best citizens of the state, none of whom have advanced to the penitentiary. 
 
 The records of the Constitutional Convention with its 119 members 
 show that it cost the state more than either the Eightieth or Eighty-first 
 General Assemblies, composed of 156 members each. Delegate Dona- 
 hey had been Auditor of his county and knew something about public 
 life and public expenditures and why did he not inject some of his eco- 
 nomical ideas into the Convention and urge the saving of $30,000 or 
 $40,000, or some part of the people’s money at that time? And would 
 it be impertinent to ask why the Auditor of State had made no special 
 objection of a public nature and had offered no criticism of public ex- 
 penditures until he heard the voice of the people at the November elec- 
 tion calling the Republican party into power in Ohio. 
 
 Speaking only for the House of Representatives, of which I am 
 clerk, I desire to submit the following comparative figures which I be- 
 lieve to be correct: 
 
 The expense of the Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly up to 
 
 and including March 17, 1914, fourteen and one-half 
 
 PILOT TSE > AWS aise Sees ele OR Se ne $467 ,364 00 
 That of the Eighty-first (Willis) General Assembly from 
 
 January 1, 1915, to March 17, 1916, (same length of 
 
 FHI ae SCO eg a a a ec gre i ea Ti ey 445,186 00 
 
 It should be noted that in the report of the Auditor of State he 
 includes in the Eighty-first (Willis) General Assembly the inaugural ex- 
 penses of Governor Frank B. Willis, which were, $1,358.45, but does not 
 charge the Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly with the inaugural ex- 
 penses of Governor Cox, which were $4,913.32. 
 
 The Auditor could have been more fair and told the public that the 
 expenses of the Willis inaugural were paid from the Legislative Com- 
 mittee fund and those of Governor Cox were a direct appropriation 
 made at the close of the session to the Adjutant General, for such pur- 
 pose. This item alone shows some economy on the part of the Willis 
 administration. 
 
 I desire to submit for your consideration the following comparative 
 statement relative to the expenses of the Ohio House of Representatives 
 
ie) 
 
 in the Eightieth General Assembly and the same body in the Eighty- 
 first General Assembly with that of the Constitutional Convention, of 
 which Mr. Donahey was a member, representing Tuscarawas county. 
 
 The House of Representatives of the Eightieth (Cox) General 
 
 Assembly was in session 112 days, had 123 members (sal- 
 
 ary $1,000 each) and 58 employes and according to Mr. 
 
 Donahey’s ‘report cost-the “state, .Sejcwa5 sins eer ah ie $190,513 96 
 The Constitutional Convention was in session 148 days in 1912, 
 
 had 119 members (salary $1,000 each) and 61 employes, 
 
 and incurred an expense to the state of...............¢. $267,571 11 
 The House of Representatives of the Eighty-first (Willis) Gen- 
 
 eral Assembly was in session 143 days; had 123 members 
 
 ‘(salary $1,000 each) and 58 employes and accofding to 
 
 Mr, Donahey’s report: eost>the state.<2o72. &. as eomelue nas $199,900 26 
 
 The foregoing figures certainly evidence the fact that there was 
 some economy practiced by the last General Assembly. 
 
 On page 1 of the report of the Auditor of State, he says: 
 
 “During the sessions of the 8oth and 81st General Assem- 
 blies, the Sergeants-at-arms of the Senate and House, drew office 
 supplies from the Secretary of State aggregating $3,000.00 for 
 both sessions. These supplies were charged by the Secretary of 
 State to the Sergeants-at-arms and the latter supplied the wants 
 of all members on demand without keeping any record of the dis- 
 tribution. In this way, the 8oth and 81st General Assemblies were 
 furnished 587 dozen lead pencils, 1,188 penholders, 85 gross pens, 
 116 boxes of rubber bands (29 pounds), 140 boxes carbon paper, 
 828 boxes of matches, 1,325 bars of soap and 741 pairs of scissors. 
 These supplies were distributed pro rata. Many members did not 
 ask for their share and received but few supplies, while some 
 ‘loaded up’ for years to come.” 
 
 Below I give a comparative statement which will speak for itself: 
 
 LEADYSPENCILS: 
 
 DOZEN 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 
 SUC Rae ge Pee SER OL See Phe Sha, mire yoke ic. See ORLA (aR ee Le 201 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 
 office of the Secretary of State........ ER I er ee ROW Fle se I 324 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 
 OHICLI OL CHE SECTOLOEY OF SOCAEC a che fle Mavergeatg coh, bla Pace ae hla ta ek meena a a 176 
 
 PENHOLDERS. 
 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 State 53 
 
 6 6 aise a A5y poe ub bw C'¢ oud & 2 6 9 08s. 0 et © 6 Olt © ales) 0.6 @ 680 0 Bbe boon A eee She ete alee es 
 
II 
 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 
 BINGE Pea COLCCATYy LOL TOLALE: Cs ee cleais pan oro e cbs pe cata a Ee ke wo gie & ole 39 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 OEEEO PatLewOECEE LALO bos lalesia a tincdac tia ces Sines ot caer Shears oie ible ws 33 
 PEA: BOXES 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 LS RTon oe ar Feast Papen Peni Sh Reap arr i SRP ne Lt PN NER Sere 36 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 COLO PaA Es GEOTCLAT IA OT: SOLAGC ems oe afta we erterio ea ee a he 9 Wap Teetahe 6 3 30 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 PHGEMGL HEM ECrELATy: Ole Otathiasc cs brace ioe eida sop eas ww baa idles ees 26 
 
 RUBBER BANDS. 
 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 
 See OUE UIE R ata ne ee GES Pee ee es oR aad ohn a ake ee Sales ca WOME ORL E Mies 40 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 
 grice-or thea secretary Of State, fue. cease cpentaw ee cowe ec hie 6 cate Mate ett cele 4] 
 House of Representatives of the &lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 
 Miicer or te: SeCkerary Of OlatGss. yates yeh ans Lb opel Be Me eae ba ee 34 
 
 CARBON PAPER. 
 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 
 SCL CARAS se iba) Sve SRS One, GR DRI ERP a AES GaN ae Mena WE ye mo an NOL 50 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 einceror tiie? secretary. Of -Statee. 8 io tec ace Seed Dein ia ou Meera eds 64 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 Giate- OF Hie Hecretar ys Ol States. 2.0 6 o baw Sak wm ea tate CE Coes 41 
 MATCHES. 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 RO Eetea ROR fee So nralat Reh onea os A aces Wath ele UIC Sra O uN AS cook eee LN 30 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 CANCEMGL ENG DeCheraT WoOL States ceased dbuitonn Bis Gare Bares waa nem caee lee 21 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 Puce sOretiey SeCretary OL, OtatE i. cke tures cn oc se ele os oe Ame swe ir edae eek 24 
 SOAP. CAKES 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 EE ayo ap or Sr ore ih ae at Oa Bn ne GIR RD pA rn OS 719 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 Meme Caener ect etant. Of States... oe sey heed cA eR CR ae aie 666 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 IMME OT LDR CCTCLALY <OLStatGne ari coats voc bs ac aniege tole meee Ue Woke es 512 
 SCISSORS. saree 
 Constitutional Convention, 1912, drew from the office of the Secretary of 
 RM Spear Aer chelsea ine Aa nA 6, Ge oP Uo eke AE ade REVEL GE bd kes ek 84 
 House of Representatives of the 80th General Assembly, drew from the 
 DMCA OL LNE; SECEELATY. OC SLALE, iy fe vale hold aid diane Save Seone a ba eae Sb 260 
 
 House of Representatives of the 8lst General Assembly, drew from the 
 Dmicerorrtine. Secretary Of OtALO Ces oor cc ov no Lab ais.e pbadec derek: Paleo 149 
 
I2 
 
 For comparison only, I submit the following figures taken from the 
 report of 1914. The Auditor in his report says that the 80th and 81st 
 
 General Assemblies drew 587 dozen lead pencils. This means for four — 
 
 years and supplied 312 members and 208 employes (clerks, stenog- 
 raphers, etc.), a total of 520 persons, averaging about one dozen pencils 
 for each person. 
 
 The following departments drew from Nov. 15, 1913 to Nov. 1I5, 
 1914, the following number of lead pencils; 
 
 AQGItOr: Ofe State sage cee aelea A 46 persons 230 dozen 5 dozen each person — 
 Attorney -Geheral—<. 2 xs costs 3.0% 26 persons 105 dozen 4 dozen each person 
 Governors: Q8iCeS. Ges. ees 8 persons 40 dozen 5 dozen each person 
 Civil Service Commission...... 23 persons 135 dozen 6 dozen each person 
 
 Other departments drew about the same proportionately, some more, 
 some less, and I take it they drew them because they needed them just 
 as the General Assembly did. This will show that the General Assembly 
 was not comparatively extravagant in its use of lead pencils, which is 
 the Auditor’s head liner. 
 
 TELEPHONES. 
 
 The Auditor’s report also says: 
 
 “It cost the taxpayers of Ohio just $4,936 to pay the long 
 distance telephone bills of the 8oth and 81st General Assemblies, 
 and it is my opinion that Ohio citizens would have secured 
 better laws with much less time consumed in their passage had 
 the telephone been removed from the State House.” 
 
 The above sum is made from incorrect figures, for example, one 
 member of the 81st General Assembly is charged eighty dollars and 
 should have been charged eighty cents. The Senate of the 8oth shows 
 a cost of “$630.00” but the Senate Journal shows that the cost was 
 “$1,028.43.” There are other discrepancies. — 
 
 I am fully convinced that men of affairs throughout the state are 
 not agreed with the Auditor’s statement. There are many firms in 
 Ohio that pay annual telephone tolls equalling and in some cases in 
 excess of the telephone bills of either branch of the Soth or 81st Gen- 
 eral Assemblies. Many prominent business firms instruct their traveling 
 representatives to telephone their homes when necessary and charge the 
 same to their expense account, and they do it. But recently, Henry 
 Ford, of automobile fame, said that he would not employ or retain in 
 his employment any man whose wife fussed with him in the morning 
 before leaving home. There could be but one possible reason for such 
 declaration, that is if the mind was so disturbed, he would be incapaci- 
 tated for the performance of his duties. From the same point of rea- 
 soning, we believe with the prominent business houses of the country 
 ‘that men who are assured that all is well in their home and their business 
 
I3 
 
 can be of better service to those they serve than if possessed with a 
 feeling of uneasiness about home affairs. 
 
 Members of the General Assembly do telephone their homes and 3 
 believe there are few citizens of the state of Ohio who are so pecunious 
 as to deprive them of this privilege, but this expense is only about one- 
 third of the total telephone cost. 
 
 There are four ways at the disposal of the members of the General 
 Assembly to keep in touch with their constituents and their homes. 
 First: the postoffice ; second: the telephone; third: the telegraph ; fourth, 
 the press. If we would have better laws by cutting out the telephone, 
 -why would they not be still better, if we cut out all forms of com- 
 munication? Does Mr. Donahey intend to say to the people of Ohio 
 that he could better conduct the affairs of his office, if he were deprived 
 of the long distance telephone! We think not, because his telephone 
 expense testifies that he cannot do so. If the telephone expense of 
 the Auditor of State, who receives an annual salary of six thousand, 
 five hundred dollars is justifiable and should be paid by the state, then 
 a like expense for a member of the General Assembly who only receives 
 -one thousand dollars a year, is also justifiable. The state of Ohio at 
 great expense provides shelter and other necessary comforts for its 
 lawmaking body. But I believe that no greater comfort could be fur- 
 nished them than the means of knowing that all is well with their loved 
 ones at home and their business affairs. 
 
 My experience of many years in legislative matters and my careful 
 study of the evolution of governmental affairs leads me to make this 
 prediction that in the very near future, there will be a telephone upon 
 the desk of each member as there now is upon the desk of state officers 
 and heads of departments for the purpose of communicating with his 
 constituents and his home. The expense of such will be paid by the 
 state. The press may contain articles of criticism, the Auditor of State 
 may report to the Governor that such is being done and denominate the 
 same as extravagance, but succeeding legislatures will come and go and 
 continue the practice. In the years to come when these things are 
 noted, the historian in his record will say that the Eighty-first General 
 Assembly was exceedingly economical in telephone bills. 
 
 A further comparison of similar bodies will be found interesting 
 relative to telephone tolls: 
 
 . TELEPHONE TOLLS: 
 Constitutional Convention 1912, composed of 119 members........... $1,702 86 
 - House of Representatives 80th (Cox) General Assembly composed 
 CSimut oPeATICINIDGE Sa Ries Nal ree 1c rencbwvacort hele skein Sa Re ee ee 2,073 23 
 House of Representatives 81st (Willis) General Assembly composed 
 PURER DO CELT ee oy vias La ke at Spee hee See a, 1,775 8&1 
 
 “A wise politician keeps his ear to the ground. 
 A wise legislator keeps his ear to the telephone.” 
 
14 
 
 REQUISITIONS. 
 
 The Auditor’s report further says: 
 
 “During the 8oth General Assembly, we observe that no record 
 was kept of the supplies, desk equipment, stationery, etc., by the 
 Sergeant-at-Arms. He simply gave the different articles to mem- 
 bers and officers when they were asked for. Prior to the last 
 General Assembly, this department sent requisition books to the 
 House of Representatives (by error, the Senate received none 
 according to their statement) to be used for the purpose of keeping 
 such a record. When a member or officer desired certain articles, 
 he would write a requisition for them to the Sergeant-at-Arms, 
 who acts as storekeeper.” 
 
 The foregoing statement is absolutely untrue for the good reason 
 that a record of all supplies drawn was kept by the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 and the Secretary of State. It is true that no record was kept of the 
 individual supplies given to each member, and also that the auditor of 
 state did have printed at the expense of the state, blanks which he di- 
 rected to be used by the members: when drawing supplies from the Ser- 
 geant-at-Arms. Had his direction been carried out to the letter it would 
 have necessitated the employment of additional help. The House of 
 Representatives, however, selected a capable and trustworthy Sergeant- 
 at-Arms, whose duty it was to furnish supplies to the members. The 
 records disclose the fact that he performed his duties conscientiously 
 and economically. I question the right of the Auditor of State to insist 
 upon this additional expense; but still more I question his authority to 
 dictate to the House of Representatives their methods in the drawing 
 of supplies. For the foregoing reason the blanks furnished by the Au- 
 ditor of State were marked “unnecessary and impertinent” and not used, 
 and the next General Assembly finding these blanks not used and not 
 knowing the reasons will say ““What a waste!” 
 
 Will the Auditor of State explain to the people of Ohio why he 
 undertook to force this procedure upon the House of Representatives, 
 and not the Industrial Commission, the Agricultural Commission or the 
 many other state departments. Does he use the same.method in his own 
 department? We are reliably informed that he did try it a few months 
 at the beginning of his state official career and found the same imprac- 
 tical and discontinued the practice. No other state department uses this 
 method either by reason of their own good judgment or the dictation 
 of the Auditor of State. 
 
15 
 
 CODES;- ROBERTS’ -_RULES OF ORDER, ETC. 
 The report further says: 
 
 “The members took their General Codes home with them.” 
 
 I admit that some members did take their Codes home with them, 
 perhaps others would have had them shipped. No fair minded person 
 will doubt that members have use for their Codes after the adjournment 
 of the session, fully as much or more than during the session. To my 
 own personal knowledge, many members had their Codes interlined and 
 notations made of changes in the statutes brought about by the ‘enact- 
 ment of the body, and as a matter of reference in giving information 
 to their constituents, they were invaluable. The Sergeant-at-Arms of 
 the House before shipment of the members’ boxes, and after careful 
 consideration of the resolution directing the shipment of such boxes, 
 was reminded by the Secretary of State that all state property must be 
 deposited with him at the close of the session of the General Assembly. 
 The forgotten law was followed. 
 
 A number of members, however, valuing their Codes paid to the 
 Auditor of State the full price of same and retained them. I do not 
 believe the inquiry would be impertinent, what authority in law has the 
 Auditor of State to sell the state’s property when the law directs other- 
 wise. I wish further to advise you that eleven sets of these Codes have 
 not been returned, at least the law relative to the same has not been com- 
 plied with, and yet notwithstanding the boastful threat of the Auditor 
 of State not to do so, all salaries of the members have been paid, ex- 
 cepting three, whose Codes were not taken away and who have not pre- 
 sented their vouchers for 1916. The latter statement I can substantiate 
 by the official records. 
 
 RETAINMENT OF EMPLOYES AFTER ADJOURNMENT. 
 The Auditor of State’s report also says: 
 
 “It is a long established custom for each General Assembly 
 at adjournment to leave on the payroll of the state until the suc- 
 ceeding General Assembly convenes a bunch of employes whose 
 positions are mostly sinecures.” 
 
 The above statement is true in part only. It is the custom to retain 
 certain employes after adjournment to complete the work of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, but I most emphatically deny that their positions are 
 “sinecures.” Admitting that there is not the same amount of work after 
 the session that there is during the session, permit me to emphasize the 
 fact that the work done after the adjournment is necessary and of a most 
 important character. Had the Auditor or his representatives desired 
 
16 
 
 information as to how our time was employed after adjournment, and 
 had made such inquiry we would have been pleased to inform him, 
 believing that with such information at hand he would not have penned 
 the foregoing statement. Without intending any disparagement to the 
 work performed by the thirty employes in the immediate office of the 
 Auditor of State, I would gladly compare the duties of the-clerical force 
 in my department, both in volume and in importance (with a possible 
 exception of ten) against the remainder of the twenty employes in 
 the Auditor of State’s office. In making this declaration I admit that I 
 am doing so without a definite idea of the duties performed by these 
 persons in his office, nor had Mr. Donahey any more definite knowledge 
 or information of the duties and labors of the clerical force in my de- 
 partment. For these reasons I am as competent of judging his affairs 
 as he is mine. I would also call your attention to this undeniable fact 
 that had it not been for the retention of the clerical force after adjourn- 
 ment, this answer to the very misleading and very deceptive report of 
 the Auditor of State would not have been made. 
 
 KEY cGRINGS: 
 
 The Auditor’s report says: 
 
 “The 81st Senate bought six key rings. 
 
 The 81st House bought 220 key rings. 
 
 The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House hasn’t the slightest idea 
 what was done with the 220. They cost $9.25.” 
 
 The foregoing is another of those inexcusable and unwarranted 
 statements, calculated to mislead and made without the slightest knowl- 
 edge of conditions or the necessity for such articles. Members and 
 attaches of the General Assembly know that every year there is con- 
 siderable expense because of the loss of keys. Many times during the 
 session members’ desks are broken open because of such fact and re- 
 pairs are thereby made necessary. The delays occasioned thereby are 
 vexations and ofttimes delay the work of the body. To have omitted 
 this expense would have been “penny wise and pound foolish.” 
 
 COMBS: - BRUSHES SET, 
 
 The report further says: 
 
 “At every session it seems to be necessary to purchase an 
 entire new supply of combs, hair brushes, hat brushes, nail 
 brushes, etc., on account of the articles being stolen at the close 
 of the preceding session. The last few times they were chained 
 to the wall but were torn loose and carried away. With all the 
 people employed by the legislative bodies, it seems strange that 
 
17 
 
 some one could not have been held accountable for these articles 
 —and if he knew he was to be held responsible if they were 
 stolen, it would have stopped this petty thievery.” 
 
 In this statement of the Auditor I find another effort to discredit 
 the honesty and integrity of the members of the General Assembly. 
 He uses the very strong words “stolen” and “petty thievery.” Does 
 the Auditor of State intend to convey the thought to the people of the 
 several counties of Ohio that they have sent to the Ohio General As- 
 sembly to represent them, thieves? Does he intend to convey the idea 
 that the gentlemen honored by their constituents in their election to the 
 Ohio General Assembly are without character and would so degrade 
 themselves as to stoop to the petty thing complained of? To my mind 
 this is among the most bitter and uncalled for statements in his entire 
 report. - 
 
 It is passing strange that a man occupying the high position of 
 Auditor of State would be guilty of such an insignificant charge against 
 some of Ohio’s best men. Completing as he is, the remaining year of 
 his term as Auditor, it is inconceivable and almost unbelievable that he 
 would offer such trifling matters to boost his campaign for re-election. 
 In my many years connection with the Ohio General Assembly I have 
 never known a time when combs and brushes were not securely attached 
 to the wall — not to prevent thievery — but for convenience. The combs 
 and brushes that are purchased for each General Assembly are prac- 
 tically in constant use for more than one hundred days. Not alone by 
 the members and attaches but by the public in general. Well, does the 
 Auditor of State know that the toilet rooms of the General Assembly 
 could be termed “public comfort stations.” In a concealed manner he 
 accuses the members of the removal of combs and brushes. The 
 coming General Assembly will expect new combs and brushes and if 
 they are compelled to use the old ones they might very properly call to 
 their assistance the Board of Health. 
 
 PRINTING. AND SUPPLIES. 
 Again his report says: 
 
 “There is entirely too much printing done for the General 
 Assembly outside of the Department of Public Printing and too 
 many articles are bought from outside firms that should be 
 purchased from the requisition department of the Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 This insignificant charge can be dismissed in a very few words. 
 It is true that the House of Representatives of the Eighty-first Gen- 
 
18 
 
 eral Assembly incurred two bills for printing, which were not given to 
 the public printer. One of these bills amounted to $3.25 and was an 
 emergency, given at 7 p. m. after the close of the State Printer’s office. 
 It was delivered to my office the next day at 9 a. m. and was ready 
 for immediate use. The other matter complained of, was an order 
 given by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, at his own dis- 
 cretion and within his authority which was for lithographing stationery, 
 a character of work not done by the State Printer. The bill for this 
 latter order has not yet been paid for the reason that I believe there was 
 an excessive charge and the delivery of same was delayed until after 
 the adjournment of the General Assembly, thereby rendering more than 
 one-half of it useless. 
 
 When this matter is fully adjusted satisfactorily with the firm who 
 furnished the printing, a voucher will be issued and honored by the 
 Auditor of State, unless his interpretation of Ohio laws is different and 
 will outweigh the decision of the courts. 
 
 SHOE SHINING, ETC. 
 
 Mr. Donahey’s report says: ~ 
 
 “The practice of the state paying for the porter and the 
 equipment for use in shining shoes of the members of the Legis- 
 lature should be stopped. If the members want their shoes 
 shined, let them grant a permit to some one outside of the em- 
 ploy of the state to open a stand in the wash rooms and there 
 pay for their shines—the same way in which the cigars and 
 candy privilege is handled. The state should be no more re- 
 quired to furnish their shoe-shines than to clean and press their 
 clothes or purchase their cigars. The amount expended by the 
 state for shoe-shining may be small— but the practice is even 
 smaller. The cost would amount to about $200.00 per month for 
 both houses.” 
 
 This criticism of Mr. Donahey’s at first thought may appear to be 
 just. Yet it is misleading and with proper explanation the fair minded 
 people of Ohio will not agree with Mr. Donahey’s view. The equipment 
 mentioned by him consists of an ordinary shoe-shining chair which has 
 been in service about twenty years and cost perhaps about twenty dol- 
 lars. No one is employed by the General Assembly for the purpose of 
 shining shoes, and the State of Ohio does not pay one cent for such 
 purpose. It is true that two porters are employed to care for the wash 
 room and toilets of the House. These porters go on duty about 7 a. m. 
 and remain on duty until 10 p. m. and very often later. They are per- 
 mitted to divide their own time. When not otherwise engaged it has 
 
tO 
 
 been the custom of the Sergeant-at-Arms to permit them to shine the 
 shoes of members or anyone else that desires them to do so. The shin- 
 ing of shoes is merely a secondary matter, not obligatory, but is merely 
 an opportunity for a little extra change received by way of tips from 
 almost all persons accepting their service. The small additional earnings 
 of these porters, I believe, is an incentive for a better performance of 
 their duties and they should not be deprived of this privilege. I think 
 careful investigation would show that a majority of the members gave 
 attention to their footwear either at their hotels or rooms before coming 
 to the state house. I am confident and believe | am reasonably correct 
 when I say that not to exceed twenty members in any one day (some 
 days not any) would have their shoes cared for by the House porters. 
 If a member of the Assembly appears with soiled shoes he is called a 
 “hayseed,”’ if he has them shined the inference is drawn by the Auditor 
 of State that he is a grafter.. Such misleading and contemptible small 
 criticisms as contained in the foregoing should never find place in a 
 public document. The cost of taking care of the lavatories would have 
 been the same if the shoe-shining chair had been chopped up and thrown 
 out the window. 
 FUNERALS. 
 
 The report further states: 
 
 “A voucher was drawn in the sum of $126.00 in connection 
 with a funeral of a member, the bill was not itemized. We do 
 not believe that this was a proper charge against the state.” 
 
 The voucher herein mentioned for funeral expenses is not charge- 
 able to the Eighty-first General Assembly. Fortunately, there has been 
 but one death among the members of the Eighty-first General Assembly. 
 Following the usual custom the speaker of the House appointed a com- 
 mittee to attend such funeral and all expenses of such committee were 
 met by the members of the General Assembly, personally. No voucher 
 for expenses of this nature has been presented to the Auditor of State 
 by anyone connected with the Eighty-first General Assembly; nor will 
 there be. There was, however, a bill presented by the former clerk of 
 the House of Representatives, of twenty-five dollars for flowers furnished 
 at the funeral of a member of the Eightieth General Assembly. The bill 
 was allowed, a voucher drawn and honored by the Auditor of State in 
 January, 1915. 
 
 We also note that three other members of the Eightieth General 
 Assembly were taken by death, all three being Democrats and the funeral 
 expenses of the committees and the floral tributes were paid for by the 
 state and the vouchers were honored by the Auditor. 
 
20 
 
 SCISSORS. 
 
 Under this head the Auditor has the following to say: 
 
 “It is interesting to note the number of shears and scissors 
 purchased by the 8oth and 81st General Assemblies. 
 
 The 80th Senate purchased 135 pairs costing...............-. $78 55 
 
 The 81st Senate purchased 140 pairs costing..............+.. 76 00 = 
 
 The 80th House purchased 318 pairs costing.:............... 184 59 
 
 The 8lst House purchased 148 pairs costing................-. 81 96 
 S51 NN Spiele pra a 741 ‘pairs COsting-#is..0 < career $421 10 
 
 No one seems to know just what was done with them. But 
 21 were turned over to the Secretary of State by the Senate and 
 17 by the House. 741 pairs purchased — 38 accounted for.” 
 
 It is noted that the Auditor of State’s report as above quoted does 
 not inform the reader which assembly returned the 38 pairs of scissors. 
 This may be a typographical error or an oversight. For your information, 
 I desire to state that they were returned by the Eighty-first General As- 
 sembly. An analysis of the Auditor’s figures will disclose the following 
 facts: The Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly purchased 453 pairs of 
 scissors. The Eight-first (Willis) General Assembly, with the same 
 membership, only purchased 288 pairs, 38 of which were returned. This 
 shows some economy on the part of the Willis General Assembly. 
 
 Further, it should be noted that the House of Representatives in 
 the Eightieth General Assembly purchased 318 pairs and the Eighty-first 
 General Assembly purchased 148 pairs of scissors, this is one pair for 
 each member and the remaining 25 for the clerical force and other off- 
 cers who of necessity were compelled to use them. 
 
 PICTURES. 
 
 The following is also quoted from the Auditor’s report: 
 
 “Each regular session, the Senate appropriates $500.00 for 
 a painting of the Lieutenant Governor. This painting, when com- 
 pleted, “adorns” the walls of the Senate Chamber and is a gift 
 to posterity. Then $100.00 is appropriated for a picture of the 
 members to be used for the same purpose. The House then ap- 
 propriates $300.00 for their pictures. Then quite a few of the 
 Committees must have their pictures taken and framed. The 8oth 
 Senate Finance Committee had 14 framed groups made, costing 
 $99.00. These group pictures were shipped to the homes of the 
 
2I 
 
 members. If Ohio is required to pay for pictures of members 
 the state certainly should retain the pictures, but the whole prac- 
 tice should be abolished.” 
 
 The Ejighty-first (Willis) legislative committees personally paid for 
 their group pictures and had a perfect right to take them home. The 
 members of the Eightieth (Cox) General Assembly did not know of the 
 other group pictures complained of and did not direct payment for them, 
 according to the records. 
 
 .Probably the following item copied from the ledger of the S8oth 
 Senate will explain how these were paid for: 
 
 “Could not keep this account because members of Legislative 
 Committees through arrangement with State Auditor Donahey 
 made up their own expense account and drew direct through the 
 Auditor of State’s office.” 
 
 tease At 
 
 The Auditor of State does not have the authority to arrange with 
 anybody in the payment of moneys; the General Code and Supreme Court 
 decisions are very clear in this matter. 
 
 If the Clerk of the Senate or House should issue vouchers for the 
 payment of money without authority and the Attorney General should 
 become aware of it, an explanation at least would have been called for. 
 
 In the Auditor of State’s report are several items of criticism, some 
 of which are mere personal opinions, and relative to these I do not care 
 to offer my own personal opinion. I leave these to your own good judg- 
 ment and to others who may read the Auditor’s report. 
 
 “It is ridiculous for any man to criticize the works of another if he has not 
 distinguished himself by his own performance.” — Addison. 
 
 The disbursements of the Auditor of State’s office for maintenance 
 have increased one hundred per cent in ten years. 
 
 The official report shows: 
 
 “Disbursements Auditor of State’s Office in 1905..........4 $99 081 
 Disbursements Auditor of State’s Office in 1914........... 206 ,282” 
 
 The Auditor of State increased his office expenses over his imme- 
 diate predecessor by eight per cent. 
 
 The official report shows: 
 
 “Disbursements Auditor of State’s Office in 1913........... $191,049 
 Disbursements Auditor of State’s Office in 1914........... 206 , 282” 
 
22 
 
 The present Auditor of State has increased his immediate office 
 force over that of his predecessor twenty-seven per cent, and this not- 
 withstanding that much of the work was taken over by the newly cre- 
 ated Board of Administration, the Budget Commission and other newly 
 created boards and very nearly all of the statistical work was taken from 
 this department. 
 
 The present Auditor of State also made a request of the Finance 
 Committee for ten thousand dollars increase in his 1915 appropriation; 
 which was refused. 
 
 I do not know and do not say whether the expenses of the office of 
 the Auditor of State are too much or too little, but I do say that any 
 department with increased expenditures is hardly qualified to criticise 
 another department which has decreased expenditures. Philosophically, 
 the way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce expenses. 
 
 But why this report of the Auditor of State at this time and why 
 was it not complete at the time of filing? 
 
 For the reason that the Auditor of State has raised the question 
 of expense and procedure of the legislature and for the further reason 
 that his report was compiled by a young man, honest no doubt, but who 
 is not qualified by either auditing or legislative experience, having been 
 a messenger in another department of state immediately previous to his 
 employment in the Auditor’s office, I wish to respectfully suggest that a 
 capable and unbiased accountant be directed by you to make a complete 
 report to you on the matters contained in the report of Auditor of State 
 to you, filed March 17, 1916. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Joun P. Maynarp, Clerk, 
 FHlouse of Representatives, 
 Eighty-first General Assembly. 
 April 
 Seventeen, 
 Nineteen-Sixteen. 
 
The Ohio State University 
 Form 10620 
 
 To renew 
 call 292-3900