The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-09-13
The PRnItcntIRFy InveAtIg Gaze
from the superintendent.
wEsr VA. pGEIrEsfEAar, tLsIr

To the Editor OF the IntelliEencpr iglh ll
In your paper oithS date there ap.
pears what purporls 10 be u 'SynopaIa'
Of the report OF the committee recently
engaged In investigating ihe affairs OF
the Penltentiary, also an editorial sum.
mhFy Of Its leading poinlH.' yTgIJ
The gentleman who furnished this
'synopStBIt (undeTstood to be the Hon.
]. ". Phelps, Senator frou1 Mason, and
Chairman OF the Committee, ! has, In so
doing, taken n, responsibility for which
he Will have 10 account heTeEfter Rs
best he can, as, according TO the state.
ment OF q member OF the Committee,
(the Senator from MonongRlia,) II was
expressly agreed, or,underst ood ,before
adjournment, that there WAS 10 be no
publication at present OF tho Com.
miltee'a report. But that Is u matter
which does not concern myself | am
concerned however, with the fact that
IN oGlenslbla statement OF the Com
mittee's conclusion has been publlshed
In such general terms, 50 free from all
qualification that II cannot be deter.
mined from II whether those con nclusions
are. warranted by the evidence or not, II
would have been falTer to have publish.
ed the whole report, evidence and all.
The public then could have formed
something like an intelligent opinion
ON the subjects involved. And, the
question here arises, Why, under the
circumstances, was this statement fur
nlshed at all2 An uncharitable person
might suppose that so laHrant a disre-
gard OF the agreement between the
members OF the Committee, ON the part
Of the Chairman, could have no other
object than 10 prejudice public opinion
against the present authorities OF the
tenltentIary, and influence beforehand
the action OF the Board OF Public
Works, or that OF Lhe Legislature
Aud thisview seems all the more proba.
BILE, when Il is recolleoted that the au-
thor OF the 'Synopsis' was also Chair.
man ofthe Committee which last win.
ter Investigated the charges against the
Superintendent, aud the majority OF
whom recommende ed my dismissal from
TINT position, aud 10 his advocacy OF
tho cause which he had espoused, dis
| played on the floor OF the Senate, u de-
gree OF feeling on the subject, amount.
Ing almost TO personal an!mOsity 10.
wards myself.
Bat dropping thls question, let me
Ot the 'Synopsis:' ... ,.,,,.r,.,,.
'Ilhe committee hnd that the accounts
between the Board OF Directors and the
State Treasury are square.
The expenditures have all been Hc-
counted for, except q, ,555 OF n 'contin-
gent. fund placed In the hands OF the,
Superintendent by the Directors, The
Superintendent claims thut this bum
has been expended, but failed to pro-
duCe vouchers showing for what
When The full report OF the committed
Is published there may be question az
10 how these conclusions were reached.
Certainly, II their figuring Is correct,
THE accounts between the Board OF DI..
reCtors and the State Treasury arc not
square, Irtheir balance sheet means
anything, / have a verbatim CODY of It
In my possession, II means that's the
Board are behind same IS 900; aud, as
there are five gentlemen composing the
Board the natural Inference Is that they
have somehow or other pocketed s., 900
Apiece. .. sn Ts,!fN - ~
AS to the alleged deficiency on my
own part, undertake to say that had
the COMMITTEES seen III 10 ullowas A
credit what actually was shown to have
DCVh Ca PVhANHN GO PVl AGGDlRkh lLlH
receipt book of the stone cutters sem-
ployea at the Penitsntlary, and by pay.
menls 70 MCGRhan and Williamson for
labor done, also vouGhed for BY re-
ceipIs, the sum unacCountedfor would
or 81 500. Why these credits we're
not nllowed:I am fotelly unable
to understa ndi' Pas there was no charge
do anhAfnInV = ,i.,
receipts were mot genuine. And further,
had theystaken cognizance Of b state
ment Of expenditures for contingent
1863, 1.-THE date to whichN1 the inVestiRa.
ton extended) which had taken fro IN
the PeniIentlary books, Item by item,
amounting 70 some slS, 900, the balance
would have been aA II properly ought
to be, on the other side. Here ,nre the
figures: The Board appropriated Sl7,
$50 45. The Committee allowed a credit
Of 81, 1855 II. The balance stated TO be
unaccou ntedi for was, therefore, 81, SOB.
81. The statements referred TO showed
including the credit allowed hyi,I'khe
Oommillee and expenditure for wbteb
10 the nature Of things, It was impos
S lefaSraphitig, % StFSveilisg sxpeSses' y,
;ovsrtiine TO conyIc;s' .Ec' Tskinv Ihs
difference ihstween this sum and the
total ltobHpprbpriation by III o aboard,
there tfetnAlnaI Hlbhlhneb 0f SIi2e3i95 In
my favor y 'tpAdH.s 70 this 81 ,o6s al Gs DE
on salary accoun ut, and $50 not, lnoIIid..
ed above, paid onl Of con tingenG fund
10 M'GanAu AndGWIlliamsonp aud the
balance In my favor reaches the sum 6fI
g. 49I 05. a. Why, did dot the author Of
Inc 'synopsis' i, US Is evident, he wish.
ed to. fasteT 'uppn me- Istigma Of
cfedits Slaim5d?IUTS IN I'll
The books and papers, as alleged,
were found 10 be In u bad condition. Ii
may be- however, well snohghlto state
Ahat those books and papers were kept
by Peter Yarnall, the party who, after
on account OF continued drunkenness
andgeneral lnntness for the duties OF
theottice, Immediately preferred the
changes against me TO the Legislature.
The charges against the Superintend.
,ent were investigated is s-a Sew.
eral In number, We're, by tho accused
uNhAOHloukeugtV W tEues Efss -
This statement 10 q very broad one
and needs correcting. II Is true IN,
point OF fact, that did acknowledge
the correctness Of certain Of the charges;
but 4 was very far from admitting Is
may be inferred from the language i0f
the 'synopsIs, that T was willing 10 b
held. responSlble FOR thems Ny ae.
Acknowledgements were made with eS>
plauetions WhlOhi 90 embodied as ttey
should be In mo evidence accom- pan a.
ihs the pOmmluee's report, Will, ! hope,
lk hen tho whole thingis published,
modify somewhat the Impression IL
ready produced regarding them. Many
Of flheacts specified were first bro1shtfo
my notice when, Yarnall, the discharged
clerk; pkeiereed his charges toIhe Leg
islAtpre; and thes exp plknatlon OF lSolile
of them vas that YafnaIl had. iouuIl
a'basls for mAkf1k Them in the fact Iui
hiS own neGledtin keeping thesbooks.
His explanation could have been SUBJ
stantlated BY Luuimpeachable testlmo-
ny, had the Committee seen proper 70
takeSanythinE more, than my own
statement in regard to the matter .
Asto the praotice OF whipping con.
vldts-Yllh raw hides, u have no re.
COllention that anV AVidono1 iWnE'fnkpn |