Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-03-26
TO THE TAX.PAYING COMMUNITY IN
VERMONT.

IS,
books OF that institution are thrown into a corner
OF private garrett buried in the dust and darkness
OF the past generation: the ultimate loss to the 1
State can never be ascerained. All the branches /
together were restricted to a circulation at no one
time exceeding S3600000; here was ample space
and verge for banking on a large scale, and had the
scheme succeeded, no doubt it would have been
continued. 1t is known that the State sustained
loss of $4,000 at one branch which sum if left in
the hands Of the tax-payng community, at the an |
nua increase of6 per cent would at this time have
exceeded 100000. But it is possible that Ia,
l-3, or even greater proportion of the authorized
actual deposits of that bank, was lost to the State
and in such case the pecuniary condition, Of the
taX-paying community, would be nuriously affect
ed, in sums to be numbered by millions. Private
corporations have lost their whole capital invested
and they are quite as likely to manage their inter-
est with prudence, as the agents Of the Govern
lnent. In private corporation the loss or gain will
be known in the case of State bank those who
may have mismanaged its concerns have an interest
to conceal the result. The same laxy of the law
is observable in the case of States Attorney. Good
bonds were required but the law secured no super
vision, and hence it occurred that those bonds were
seldom taken from the Clerks Office after their first
deposit among his files. The law became in fact
dead letter: delinquencies were frequent, but
prosecutions rare, because the law had established
no efficient supervision. In the year 1913 the
Auditor, in pursuance of a resolution of the LIE.
gslature, looked up and put in train of collection
more than $4,000 in State claims, a large portion
of which, it was the duty of officers under bonds
to have collected, and yet the investigation extend
cd back to only about five years. The duty of of
tcers was clearly pointed out by law, good bonds
were taken and here the law was, virtually, left to
execute Itself. The system resembled well made
cask, wanting only bottoms it would hold moth
ing. The same objections could be made to the
bonds taken of County Clerks, military Quarter
Masters, Sergeant-at-arms, &c. the bonds and sur
etics were unobjectonable, but there was no ade-
qnate power to call those respective officers to
count, and the funds of the people might be squan
dered to an indefinite amount, and stll those bonds
avail nothing. Indeed so reckless had become
those, whose duty it to take bonds of officers,
intrusted with the funds of the Government, that
on examination of the Treasurer's office the le-
gal depository of those bonds, in 1912, not one in
three, required by law to be deposited there, could
be found.
Another serious mischief in the law was, that it
conferred power on several different and distinct
boards, to allow in their dscretIon for many servi-
ces, for whose compensation no specific provision
was made in the fee-bill. As a matter of neces-
sty this gave occasion to great inequality of al
lowance, for the same kind amount of service.
The act of October 9th, I79S, after prescribing
the compensation for every defined service, IN that
Statute, concludes in these Words viz, and for a
ny other duty or service done or performed, such
sum- shall be in proportion to the fees specially
provided by this or any other act" In that part OF
the act, relating to the fees of Clerks it is provd
ed, that they shall receive such sums, shall be
allowed by the Courts, and it is supposed that the
Courts interpreting the whole act together, would
regard the provisions of the I'd Section and appor-
ton the allowance, to be in conformity to the
law. Still this discretionary power of allowing &c
counts, by many different boards has been an occa
sion of great diversity of practice, and serious
waste Of the public funds The Statute evidently
was framed TO secure allowances in all cases, pro
portioned to the fees established by law. Such Ii
the phraseology of the i. S. and similar provis
ion has been retained in all the acts on the subject
since l79S, and still it is impossible to reconcile
the allowance of such claims. with the Statute
Scarcely would the practice have been more varl
ant, had there been no law on the subj ect By thu
law of 1917, States Attorneys and Clerks were re
quired to exhibit their accounts for allowance ga
each stated session Of the Legislature, REGULAR,
allowed and signed by one of the Judges of the Su
preme Court" and it provided, that no none!
should be paid out of the Treasury, on the said &C
counts, until they should be examined and allowed
by the Legislature. This law remained in fore
only years before the practice became so variant
as to arrest the notice Of the Legislature, and still
the three Judges of the Supreme Court were tn
only persons authorized to allow and sign those &C
counts The law 10 remedy this evil, in regard t
Clerks accounts, commences with a " whereas Their
is a want Of uniformity in the several accounts
made out and exhibited to the General Assembl,
by the Clerks of the Supreme Court" &C., there
fore it was enacted that the "Judges of the ST
preme Coulter quorum of them, be and the
were thereby authorized and empowered &c,
examine, audit and dust those accounts and dra
orders the Treasurer of the State Tor the amour
thereof" Tuis act was passed Nov. 1901. 1t ina
be remarked, that to secure the desired uDiforult
the settlement of these accounts committed
one board. In 1904 the same disposition was mad
! in I'd too rrSe Tho 10
of 1921, reenactng the fee bill, gave the settle
ment of these accounts to the Judges Of the 81
, preme and County Courts, and from that time
1912, the law remained essentially the same. Thi
aw authorized more than thirty individuals to a
low those accounts and if in 1901, when only ii
three judges of the Supreme Court were clotht
with jurisdiction in this matter, the Legislature he
f occasion to complain of the want OF uniformity
I allowing those accounts, the evil would be propo
tionably magnified by the law Of 1921. The phr
{ seology of this act, is "such sum shall be allo'
. ed by the Court" Under this act an account
o lowed by single Judge becomes an allowance
n the Court, and so the practice has been, ana as
course a very great want Of uniformity has obtal
ed, in many cases extending 10 400 or 500 per ce
e and still the accounts were duly certified as allo
o ed according to law. This resulted from caus
: which must Of necessity have produced discrepon
o of practice The construction of the law, and
q compensation resting IN discretion, were commit
sc 10 seNeIu tIlouhas, lIoll "Hos0 ucS'oioh 'hS'0
r no appeal
V Another defect in the law was, that in some c.
Is es it united the allowing and paying department
4 the same person thus the law, Revised Statu
Chapter 18th, Section 56th, made it the duty OF
Treasurer to settle States Attorneys accouI
e "and finally to adjust and close the same" i
D., law was also too complicated to secure correct
" counting. /, made this result depend on the CO
tn current acts of several different officers, either
lie which falling correct account could not be k6
of Thus Clerks of Court were required to make
ne turns to the Clerk of the General Assembly of
at State causes entered on the dockets, SC, and
IN fore the revision in 1889, the Clerk of the Gene
,e Assembly was required to transmit the original
IT, turns after he had entered them on the Journals
as the House, to the Treasurer of the State. All
n. was done TO enable the Treasurer to charge Sta
an Attorneys in account. BY the act OF 1889
n Clerk of the General Assembly is not required
transmit these returns to the Treasurer. BY S