Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-03-15

SANDER or impair the humbest reputation upon
premises so slight and contemplate as this.
This is another reason why denounce this re-
port as partizan.
But, sir the member from Van Vert, charges
that Governor Chase assisted Gibson to borrow
SI4,00 from the State Treasury after the defal-
cation, and that in some way he received a ben
eft from this loan.
But, sir, will give the transaction in the
words of the Commissioners;
"At the time alluded to, the Sinking Fund had
some SIS 900 in the Treasury, TO be used as preyl
ousy indicated, and Mr.. Gibson being aware Of It,
proposed 10 the Acting Fund Commissioner, MI
| Wright 10 transfer TO New York free of exchange
1.-The old form OF borrowing from the State Treas
| ury)-Sl4,00O of the accumulated fund Mr. Glib
| son was personally aided, in this renewed attempt
at reaching the Treasury by his former assistant
! Charles L. johnson, who proposed as an addition
al inducement to release the State from any further
liability to the Seneca County Bank on account OF
the S32 l28 transactions with the State bonds. Mr.
Wright advised with Governor Chase upon the
subject The Governor did not recognize any oblga-
ton as existing the part of the State to the Sen
eca County Bank, and therefore could not consider
| that alone sufficient inducement to entertain the
proposition, but thought with Mr.. Wright that 1t
was otherwise advantageous to the State. Mr. Glib
loau To avoid being publicly known as borrow
er at the State Treasury, he uses afOretme, the
| names of Bartlit 4 Smith, who gave their drafts
on New York for g 900 each, at 80, 40, 60 and ~
DAYS, endorsed BY Mr.. Comstock, Of Columbus,
| which drafts were discounted at six per cent, by
Mr.. Wright, and the proceeds paid to Bartlit q
Smith for Mr. Gibson and Charles L. johnson. At
first only IS 900 thus passed from the State Treas
ury into Mr. Gibson hands, bat subsequently, an
other transaction of like character for $1,000 was
1 4 IL l. IS eft
A law having passed prov iding for temporary
State Ioan it was known that from it all funds need
ed in New York would be furnished, and therefore,
after the payment of the first draft by Bartlit d
Smith, an arrangement was made by Mr.. Wright
for the balance of the drafts to be paid at the State
Treasury in Columbus and they were so paid at
maturity"
Nov, sir, deny that Gov. Chase, either di-
rectly or indirectly, received any benefit Of this
loan. The commissioners of the Sinking Fund
did loan about $4,000 at this time of the sink
ing fund, upon perfectly responsible paper, at
six per cent interest, and took, therefor, drafts
payable in New York Under the law of 1856,
it was made the duty the Fund Commissioners
to forward to New York the accumulations OF
this Sinking Fund in the Treasury. whenever
they amounted to $4,000. And this was all
that they did do; and that in pursuance of law.
The State made by this transaction 1920, and
every dollar of the loan principal interest and en-
change lrGs pad back into the Treasury
So much for the Jolly of attempting to put up
an outside issue in this matter. But, says the
member from Van Vert, there was note OF
Schouler & Co on which Wright was endorsed
and which Chase had agreed to guarantee, Civ
en- up to Gov. Chase as part oil the considera-
ton of this loan. Now, sir, Mr.. Wright in his
testimony positively denies this, and says that
fba ofa had VII IN IN
with the transaction, but that the loan and all
arrangements were made by the Commissioners
of the Sinking Fund, and they only. w.
!. ! think if the gentleman has no other defsl-
cation to charge upon Gov. Chase than this,
that the Governor will be able to outlive the
libel.
! Again, it is seen that Mr. BresIin swears
without reservation or qualification, in the
broadest possible terms that the English
language allows, that Mr.. Gibson kRel0 nothing
of the defalcati0n at the time he entered upon
the duties of his office. Then why not give
: Mr. Gibson the benefit OF that denial like mer.l
Why not sly so in the Report in plain terms,
and not by innuendoes, insinuations and guess
work, endeavor to break the force of this TN
qualified statement of Mr.. Bresinl That this
statement of Mr.. Breshn is true nobody can
doubt. As yet it stands lRimDeached, and the
Commission has spent its ingenuity upon it in
vain. That Mr.. Gibson was guilty of fraud in
endeavoring to cover up and conceal this def
cit, no Republican denies. That his conduct
was wholly inexcus4ble, everybody will admit;
but one plain, simple truth is brought TO light,
that however wrongfully Mr.. Gibson acted, that
however devious were his msdoings, and how
ever improper or even criminal was his con-
duct, the State of Ohio suffered little or no loss
of money at has hands. This fact the Commits
sioners though wandering through twenty col
umns of matter to disprOve, are compelled at
last to admit. More money than is claimed by
these Commissioners to have been lost to the
State by Bliss and Gibson both, was lost by
breslin in his single deposit of the public funds
with W. W. Cones d Co at Cincinnati.
Now, sir, charge that Mr.. Breslin and the
Democratic party, and they only, are response
BILE for this enormous fraud upon the people of
the State of Ohio. l say, sir, that during the
whole of Mr.. Breslins term of office, Il lcGs
aoeH kpOlon TO the officers of State that Mr. Bres-
lin leGs improperly using the public moneys
Mr.. Breslin was elected in 1851, and at once
commenced the practice of those "erTOrs" that
have resulted SO disastrously to the people of
the State The Auditor well knew these facts,
and in his report of 1882 called the attention
of the General Assembly to the inadequacy Of
the laws for the protection of the Treasury. l
quote from the report of the Commissioners as
follows:
AT the Inauguration ofthe first administration,
in 1852, after the adoption Of the new Constitution,
the facts we have stated were garngly apparent,
aud the suspicion existing, that Mr.. Breslm was
placing himself and the funds of the State in dan
ger through the influences we have d scrbed, the
attention Of the Legislature called TO tie then
almost entire absence inefciency of the laws for
their security. An effort was made TO procure the
passage Of such laws as would have secured fre.
quent personal inspC cton Of the Treasury by prop
er officers, and eiectualy protected the State
against losses arising from official misconduct
Although the effort was persistent, it failed of sue
cess, because it would have been at once death
blow to all further attempts at plumber.
Yes SIR here was Democratic Legislature
called upon by democratic Auditor, to pro-
tect the people against the plumber of demo-
cratic Treasurer, bat there was no response TO
the call. The Legislature was climinally neg
lectful of the interests confded to their charge
Again, in December, 1853, the Auditor, Mr..
! Morgan, called the attention of Democratic
| Legislature to the necessity of protecting the
Treasury. Iquote from his report:
"a sense of duty requires repetition of the ef-
| fort made in the AUDITORS last annual report to
impress upon the Legislature the necessity of pla
cling the revenue of the State under additional
checks and safeguards The i'm
preston is natural as well as general one, that
all moneys paid into the State Treasury become an
immediate charge against the Treasurer, on the
books of the State Auditors Office, and that the
daily receipts at the one, are matter Of daily re
cord in the other. The extent to which this i'm
preston is erroneous may be judged by the single
fact that during the months of November and De-
cember, 1859, payments Of money were made TO
the Treasurer, amounting TO a sum exceeding three
quartersof amillion of dollars of which the Auditor
had no official information until he following
month Of February. This occurrence, although
extraordinary, Is neither new nor the only one of
its kind 1t will serve, however, to illustrate the
utter absence of accountability between the Treas
4ry and the coordinate department, charged with