Marshall County Republican., 1861-03-14
the State Treasury.
JAMES P. DRAKE, DEMOCRATIC rRkARuREE OF
STATE.

back to the State $1,000, which it had
for the Mexican War General
Reynolds. who received it. paid it over to
Mr.. Drake. who gave him an "informof
receipt" for it-that is, kind of receipt
which enabled any one having the funds
of the State to use them without interest
paid, as in the case OF SlS.060 held by
Governor Willard, or enabled the Treas
urer to hold the money and use it as his
own. without being charged on hi. books
with it. In this case Drake got the mon
ey, but did not charge himself with it on
his books. Just before Governor Wright
went to Berlin, he paid into the Treasury
for Drake 80. las Of t his money, which he
stated that in some transaction he owed to
Drake, and insisted that it should 20 on
this $1,000. But, alas, for the patriotic
Governor. Drake says. that he let Wright
have it ont of this So 900, soon after he
received it from Reynolds. If this is true.
it explains why the informal receipt was
given, to enable Wright to use his part of
the money without interest as long as he
wanted it, which he did for several years.
brakes part has never been paid; he is
not liable on his official bond. for suit is
barred on it by the statue of limitations,
and personally lac is insolvent.
JOHN W. WRIGHT, JOHN F. DUNN. AND THE
''No SUING POLICY"
We have just seen that by allowing the
claim of the State to remain for years un-
sued on. it lost S2.S55 principal, besides
interest, by Gen Drake. In the claim we
are now considering there is loss Of 81
900 prime ipal from the same cause.
Wright was employed by Treasurer
Newland in 1854 to purchase S34. 900
worth of the stocks of the State. The
money was paid him, AMI he purchased
stocks to that amount, except 1900 worth.
Subsequently he presented an account a
gainst the State for this amount, for the
purchase of the stocks. John F. Dunn as
Auditor certified it was correct, but Gov.
Wright, Auditor Talbot and Treasurer
Nofsinger disallowed the account, on the
opinion of Attorney General James Nor
rison. because it appeared that Wright
was to make the purchase without any
charge. expecting to receive compensation
by incidental advantages in the purchase.
Although Wright gave bond for the faith
ful performance of his contract, yet no no
tice was given his sureties of his failure as
to the 1900. and they are exonerated
from liability in consequence. There is
but little expectation that the claim can
be made ont of Wright.
Why did not Gov. Wright order the
Attorney General to bring suit against
him in proper time?
ritEAsUnERs DRAKE AND NEwLAND, surERIS-
TENpENT LARRABEE, AND THE HARpERs.
The reckless way in which the Stat,
Treasury has been managed may be seen il
the fact that Newland and Drake loaned
to the Peru Railroad Company, and wher
consolidated with the Madison Road, S32,
900. When Larrabee wanted money to
pay for books for the Township Libraries
this claim was turned over to him. and HI
by arrangement with DIR. Ellis, Presiden
of the road. got the Harpers to accept, OF
time, from Ellis, notes to this amount
But the HarPers claimed from Larrabes
$3.50 interest for this time, which he paiC
them. but the Railroad Company never re
paid it to the State. The Company is in
solvent, and so the State loses this interes
because Drake end Newland loaned tn
1920 instead OF keeping it in the Treas
ury.
But there is another matter, relative t,
Mr. Larrabee's purchase. that the Com
missioners make no report about. Book
sellers have an established way of selIin.
books. We believe it is this: They charg
the retail price. deducting 33 per cent. I,
retail booksellers, twenty five per cent. t,
heavy purchasers. as our Superintendent
20 per cent. to other small purchasers. On,
so on. Now Mr.. Larrabee's purchase
are deducted % per cent. on the face of al
the bills, except one for $4,000. TIL
question then arises, was this one reall,
deducted % per cent. but not on the fac'
of the bill. Ii so. did Mr.. Larrabee charg
the State with the $4,000? Or was thi
bill not discounted. because the Harper
had to run the risk of getting pay from tn
Peru railroad, and Of which. the Com
missiouers say. they received part only
If SO. then the State lost the discount an
interest both, which make together 80,
$50.
AUDITORS TALBoTT's ASE DoDp's DEPOSIT
IN THE BANK OF THE CAPITOL.
When Talbot went out of Office, h
turned over to Mr.. Dodd, his successor, q
part of his assets s22. 900 as deposi
in the Bank of the Capitol. This was Jan
nary %. 1857. The bank failed in August
J we think. or September. ofthatsear. Dod'
continued depositing and drawing out. NJ
to the time of the failure. leaving 1921.
81 un1rawn. He informed the Commis
sioners that his suspicious wers:early arous
ed as to the solvency Of the bank; that th
best way to get the money out was t
make less depociis than he drew out; 'tha
in pursuing this plan. he succeeded in re-
covering all but s3. .24757. which is los
to that amount to the State. but loss
chargcable to his predecessor" Aftel
some hesitation. say the Commissioners
VIC adopted that conclusion, and therefore
/ are disp posed to discharge General Dodt
fror, all liability on account Of it..
Did the commissioners examine Tho
books of the Bank of the Capitol? I
they had they would have seen that Mr.
| Dodd opened fvo accounts Of deposit with
the Bank. ono appearing on the books a
! Jown w. Dodd, the other ss John w
Dodd, Auditor. Here. then. was an indi