rant, and this after having instructed the county attorney to commence said criminal action. That on the evening of June 28, 1890, the city council of said city of Springfield met in special session for the purpose of employing counsel in said case.

That prior to said meeting said Theodosius Botkin spoke to J. A. Wemple, a member of said council, relative to said meefing, and in substance used the following language: "You must get that business fixed up to-night; if you don't, something is going to pop. I have been monkeying with this city business about as long as I am going to." And other of said councilmen he advised to employ as their attorney W. P. Hackney, an attorney at law, and to do as said Hackney told them. And during most of the time said council was in session said Theodosius Botkin walked back and forth on the sidewalk in front of the entrance leading up to the council chamber, and sent up to see what the council was doing. That a majority of said council employed the said W. P. Hackney as their attorney, and issued a city warrant to him for $4,000, payable out of the water-works funds of said city. That after the adjournment of said council, near the hour of midnight, Saturday night, the said Theodosius Botkin, together with the said W. P. Hackney, County Attorney J. B. Adams, and the receiver, J. M. Adams, with others, repaired to a drug store where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to law, and said Theodosius Botkin was there seen drinking and carousing; soon after which he was called out of said drug store by one W. E. Ralstin, a member of said city council, who informed him that said $4,000 warrant which had been issued had been illegally issued, and was for an exorbitant amount, and he requested him not to audit or allow said warrant; and said Ralstin in said conversation told him that he had talked with the said county attorney and demanded that the payment of said warrant be enjoined; and said Theodosius Botkin, in said conversation, informed said Ralstin that an injunction proceeding was the proper remedy, but said, "it is now about midnight" (it being Saturday night), "and the county attorney can file his petition early Monday morning, and I will issue the order of injunction." But, willfully disregarding said promise, the said Theodosius Botkin, together with said attorneys and receiver, went to the Bank of Seward county, of which bank said Receiver Adams was cashier, and while said parties were at said bank said Theodosius Botkin audited, allowed, and ordered paid said city warrant for $4,000, which warrant bore date June 28, 1890, and purported to be for legal services, payable out of any moneys in the city treasury derived from the water bonds. On the back of which warrant said Theodosius Botkin wrote the following indorsements, to wit: "June 28, 1890. Audited and allowed, and receiver ordered to pay same out of funds on hand. - THEO. BOTKIN, Judge." "J. M. Adams, receiver, in State, ex rel., vs. G. W. Winn, et al.: Pay within order out of funds in your hands, and same shall be your receipt for amount. -- THEO. BOTKIN, Judge."

That on the following Sunday morning, the said Theodosius Botkin

left Springfield, in company with said W. P. Hackney, and never issued said injunction. That afterwards, said Theodosius Botkin, in like illegal manner, directed warrants to be issued, and approved the same, and directed them to be paid, until he had absorbed all of said $7,789.68 belonging to said city of Springfield, except about the sum of $1.892.43, thus illegally taking from the funds of said city more than $5,897; and thereupon he made an order, as judge of the district court, discharging said receiver and dismissing said action; that from the time of the filing of the petition in said case No. 543, and the issuing of the order of injunction therein, to the time of the dismissal of the same at the regular September term, 1890, not one effort was made by the court or the parties to said action to arrive at or determine any of the merits or demerits of said case.

And the House of Representatives of said state of Kansas, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any further articles or other accusation or impeachment against the said Theodosius Botkin, judge of the thirty-second judicial district of the state of Kansas, and also of replying to his answers hereto, and of offering proof to all and every of the aforesaid articles, and to all and every other articles of impeachment or accusation which shall be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said Theodosius Botkin may be put to answer the high misdemeanors as herein charged, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given as are agreeable to justice.

The above and foregoing articles of impeachment were duly exhibited in and adopted by the House of Representatives, on Friday, the 27th of February, 1891. P. P. ELDER, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

BEN. C. RICH, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The president of the Senate said:

Gentlemen of the Board of Managers on the part of the House of Representatives: Your communication will be duly considered by the Senate in its proper order. When the Senate has resolved itself into a high court of impeachment, the House of Representatives will be duly notified, and orders made and process issued as required by law.

THIRD READING OF BILLS.

Senate bill No. 124, An act relating to fire, lightning, wind, hailstorm and tornado insurance, and fire, lightning, wind, hailstorm and tornado insurance companies, and to amend sections 22 and 29, chapter 93, laws of 1871, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 21, nays 0.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Carroll of Miami, Emery, Forney, Johnson, Kelley of Crawford, Kelly of McPherson, King, Lockard, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, Murdock, Norton, Osborn, Rankin, Richter, Rush, Senior, Wheeler, Wilson, and Wright.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Bentley, Berry, Buchan, Carroll of Leavenworth, Elliston, Gillett, Harkness, Hays, Howard, Kimball, Kirkpatrick, Long, Mechem, Moody, Roe, Schilling, Tucker, and Woodward.

A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the of the bill, the bill passed, and the title was agreed to.

passage

Senate bill No. 353, An act to fix the times of holding court in the sixteenth judicial district, and repealing all acts in conflict with this act, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 24, nays 0.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Bentley, Carroll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Elliston, Emery, Forney, Hays, Howard, Kelley of Crawford, Kelly of McPherson, Kirkpatrick, Lockard, Martin, Mohler, Moody, Osborn, Rankin, Richter, Roe, Rush, Schilling, Smith, Wheeler, and Wright.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Berry, Buchan, Gillett, Harkness, Johnson, Kimball, King, Long, McTaggart, Mechem, Murdock, Norton, Senior, Tucker, Wilson, and Woodward.

A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the passage of the bill, the bill passed, and the title was agreed to.

House bill No. 141, An act to abolish school districts 49 and 50 in Lincoln county, Kansas, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 21, nays 0.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Bentley, Forney, Harkness, Hays, Howard, Johnson, Kelley of Crawford, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Mechem, Moody, Norton, Osborn, Rankin, Richter, Rush, Senior, Smith, Wheeler, Wilson, and Wright.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Berry, Buchan, Carroll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Elliston, Emery,

Gillett, Kelly of McPherson, Kimball, King, Lockard, Long, Martin, Mohler, Murdock, Roe, Schilling, Tucker, and Woodward.

A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the passage of the bill, the bill passed, and the title was agreed to.

House bill No. 240, An act to abolish school district No. 102, in Montgomery county, and to add to the adjacent districts the territory comprised within the bounds of said district, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 25, nays 0.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Bentley, Berry, Carroll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Elliston, Emery, Forney, Hays, Howard, Johnson, Kelly of McPherson, Kirkpatrick, Lockard, McTaggart, Mechem, Mohler, Moody, Norton, Osborn, Richter, Senior, Smith, Wheeler, Wilson, and Wright.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Buchan, Gillett, Harkness, Kelley of Crawford, Kimball, King, Long, Martin, Murdock, Rankin, Roe, Rush, Schilling, Tucker, and Woodward. A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the passage of the bill, the bill passed, and the title was agreed to.

House bill No. 305, An act to empower Medora township, in Reno county, Kansas, to purchase a site and erect thereon buildings for said township, and to provide for payment of the same, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 24, nays 0.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Bentley, Berry, Buchan, Emery, Forney, Hays, Howard, Johnson, Kelly of McPherson, Kirkpatrick, McTaggart, Mechem, Moody, Murcock, Norton, Osborn, Richter, Rush, Schilling, Smith, Tucker, Wheeler, Wilson, and Wright.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Carroll of Leavenworth, Carroll of Miami, Elliston, Gillett, Harkness, Kelley of Crawford, Kimball, King, Lockard, Long, Martin, Mohler, Rankin, Roe, Senior, and Woodward.

A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the passage of the bill, the bill passed, and the title was agreed to.

Senator Buchan moved that the rules be suspended, an emer

gency declared, and substitute for Senate bill No. 268 be placed on third reading now, subject to amendment and debate, which motion prevailed.

Substitute for Senate bill No. 268, An act to create a department of agriculture, to provide for a display of the products of the state at the World's Columbian Exposition, to be held in Chicago, Illinois, in 1892 and 1893, to provide for a board of managers, define their duties and make appropriation therefor, was put upon its third reading.

Senator Murdock offered the following amendment to section 1, line 4: After the word "and," insert the following words: "who shall."

A vote being had, the amendment was adopted.

Senator Mohler offered the following: "Sec. 19. All acts or parts of acts in conflict or inconsistent with this act be and the same are hereby repealed."

A vote being had, the amendment was adopted.

Senator Mohler moved that section 19 of the printed bill be made section 20, which motion prevailed.

The bill as amended having been read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 26, nays 5.

Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs. Bentley, Buchan, Carroll of Miami, Elliston, Emery, Forney, Harkness, Hays, Johnson, Kelley of Crawford, Kelly of McPherson, King, McTaggart, Martin, Mohler, Murdock, Osborn, Richter, Roe, Rush, Smith, Tucker, Wheeler, Wilson, Woodward, and Wright.

Senators voting in the negative were: Messrs. Berry, Carroll of Leavenworth, Kirkpatrick, Lockard, and Moody.

Senators absent or not voting were: Messrs. Gillett, Howard, Kimball, Long, Mechem, Norton, Rankin, Schilling, and Senior.

A constitutional majority having voted in favor of the passage of the bill, the bill as amended passed, and the title was agreed to.

House bill No. 739, An act to vacate the plat of Miller's subdivision of Hilton's addition to the city of Wichita, Sedgwick county, together with the streets and alleys therein dedicated, was read the third time, and the question being, Shall the bill pass? the roll was called, with the following result: Yeas 23, nays 0. Senators voting in favor of the passage of the bill were: Messrs.