The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-08-15
Tbur.dny Morning, ......... August IS.
Another Explanation from the Au-
hii0F

-
his connection with l.. +. MoORE'S
forged witness certificates, which ex-
planation was published in the REGIS
TER oi Saturday last We infer that he
agrees with the public in deeming his
card an insufficient defence of his official
conduct. Hence the attempt of yester-
day'S IHfrlIigcHccr Ia eXtricate him from
his unpleasant predicament.
Having carried our personal bitter
ness" in this matter so far as To pub
lish the Auditors original explanation,
we think il but right to continue our
.'vindictiveness" to the extent of pre-
senting the revised and amended apOl-
ogy, as given in the editorial cOiamns
of Yesterdays HtslEgcRccr. II is as fol-
lows:
The ease, as we understand it, is brief
Is this: About the first of last April
Auditor McWhOrteT received Il letter
rom Mr. Moore iuquiIing how witnesses
before the Board of Registration were
70 receive their pay from the state.
respondent would forward said certiii-
ra1,-S properly endorsed 10y the parties
10 whn.t they were IsSued, and also il
the comri would approve aud certify the
LIST, he wunid r.Inil u check for their
rayment shortly after this cOrresPon-
.lcnrt. he received the certiiica'es eu-
,iorsed in The handwriting of one per
son. whereupOn he wrote tO Mr. Moore
,l..,1
;hin" wrong about the endorsements
and therefore could not pay them. The
Circuit Court of kanawha, however,
had certified the certificates after the
endorsements referred 10 had been made
on thcu and had directed the Auditor
to pay the money 10 MI. Moore. But
Notwithstanding this certificate and
order he did not pay them, FEELING still
apprchensiye that the endorsements
we're not Is they should be.
The REGISTER says that the Auditor
snOnld have forwarded the certificates
10 the Prosecuting Attorney OF Kama
wha county. In other words. that he
shonld have placed his correspondent,
who. for all Mr.. McWhOrter knew, was
entirely innocent of any maliI tent
whatever. uuder the suspicion of the
law officer ~ Charleston. Instead Of
taking any step of the sort The Auditor
very properly awaited further CORES
rondcnce upon the subject, expecting,
~ "a matter of course, that inasmuch as
z the claims remained unpaid, lie would
hear further from the parties interested.
II was known 10 the Court that the GER
tificates had been forwarded tn the An-
, ditor's office for payment, and IN case OF
any question arising before the legal
authorities as to the correctness of the
Endorsements, the papers were sccessi-
bic npsn due requisitiOn. The Auditor
did not know hat there was To be any
such investigation, aud therefore did not
forward the documents TO the PrOsecut-
ing Attorney. 1t is no part of his bnsl-
ness 10 suggest or instigate prosecutions
against his correspondents throughout
the State because of mistakes or infor-
malities in their enclosures TO him. All
that he il required To do Is to guard the
pHblic monies and not pay them ont ex-
eept according IN la". And this trust,
we need not say. Nr. McWhortcr faith
fury discharges. He is known 10 all
bis acquainianCCS, and TO all who have
had personal or official intercourse with
him. as an upright, correct, modest, and
prompt public officer. We doubt II the
State has ever had better servant.
Tie certificate of the Court would
have justified The Auditor in rcmitting
to Mr. Moore ut once, whatever might
be his own notions about the endorse
ments Aud tue fact that he refused
r4ymcnt until he could be satisfied that
the endorsements were properly made,
only shows how careful is his habit of
scrutinizing papers that come into his
hands He chose To write and seek this
Satisfaction before issuing his warrant,
instead of availing himself of the power
to pay under the certificate of the
Court. Some of the papers have come
back properly authenticated by the
parties in who's favor they were drawn,
and hav. been paid. We presume all
ofthcm will he eventually authen'ica.
tel in the same way. IL appears that
Mr. Moore WIS guiltleSs of any intent
10 drfraud in tho matter and that he
sign the names of the parties by their
verbal authority.
There is nothing in the foregoing rep
resentation, inconsistent with MooRE's
guilt, OF MCWHORTER's delinquency in
shielding him. There is not a single
ac4 ascribed 20 MOORE, which a forger
would not have done. He is said to
have written to the Auditor, making
inguiries as to the manner in which
certain witnesses were to receive their
nav. Would not a defrauder do the
same: The intimation, for it il not an
assertion, that MOORE had authority
for signing the names Of those parties,
cannot, as the writer probably knows,
be substantiated. As an offset to this
feeble claim of MOoRE's innocence, We
may refer to the Auditors admission
that he was satisfied, from the start,
that the papers were forged.
Coming next to Mr.. McWHORTER's
connection with this matter, what ap-
pears in his favor' Why that mp to
June Court, the time at which MOoRE's s
szse was before Ksnawha county Grand
Jury, the Auditor still retained the GER
tifeates. This is the only fact of which
he can claim the benefit. We say this
1.-THE only fact" in his favor, because
We cannot de- e'ermine, from the above
eztract, whether he had at that time
paid any, all or none of these certtf-
sstes, and so are unable to place any
hing to his credit on that score. On
tie other hand, the Auditor appears to
have been comforting with Mr.. MOORE
IN relation to the forgery-avery singu-
lar procedure. Imagine the Cashier of
a Bank, when forged check ispresent-
"a for payment, consulting and adyi-
sing with the forgsr, and expressing his
@Ppreheusions, aud finally concluding
las it is "no part Of his business to
seggest or instigste prosecutions'
because Of mistakes or informahties.