The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1870-10-13

express charges, stamps, interest, &C." How
much interest is not stated. We give the en-
try as it stands and commend it to the atten-
tion of our business men, as the most compre-
hensive entry, perhaps, on record.
| If we return to the credits, errors exist there
| also.
In August the State paid Kimpton S125,0OO,
but somehow or other Kimpton only gives
credit for $124,5O0.
In September, the State again paid him Sl7S,-
525, but gets credit for only S158, 900. On these
| two entries the State loses S21, 900. What be-
came of this amount? The State paid it out.
The State does not get the credit for it. Where
did the money stop? Who has it? Against
whom will Mr.. Chamberlain, as attorney gen
eral, bring action on behalf of the State to re-
cover this $4,000? We wait to see. How
long shall we wait?
Let us sift the treasury accounts little.
There was paid out of the treasury for interest
the public debt in July, August, September .o, - :.
IN a1a nv I"eust September Kimpton paid
account of State interest on public debt - -
amounting lsZ''o4 oo
Here then was. 525,259 12
paid out by the State for interest," and yet on
the 91st of October the entire amount is again
put down in treasury accounts, as paid for in
terest on public debt. In other words, the Off
cial accounts show that S525, ,26912 of interest
has been twice charged. If it was simply q
clerical error, the cash on hand would show it.
But the cash on hand is only S11, ,S5l.O7. The
money is therefore not in the treasury. 1t has
been paid out. Who got it7 Where is it?
There is not merchant or bookkeeper anywhere
who will not say that the entry is false entry.
What reliance can be placed on accounts thus
kept? And yet of such material Mr.. Chamber
lain seeks to build moument to the financial
wisdom of the Scott administration.
lain's argument on the financial question so
fully, that we can but briefly allude to the other
parts of his speech.
+ A word, however, as to the bills receivable
Mr. Chamberlain says 100000 of these
bills had been issued prior to July, 1853" l
confess to great surprise at reading this state
ment. The truth was so clear, correct infor-
nation so easily attainable that MIR. Cham
berlain owed it to himself to make the inquiry
before he risked his reputation on such an as
sertion. There never was 100000 of the bills
in existence and Mr. Chamberlain could easily
have known it. Governor Orr, in his message
to the called session of the Legislature in July
1868, says "only $220, 900 haze been signed and
carried to cash in the treasury. On LIST May,
1868, there was outstanding and in circulation
of these bills receivable only $135,6S7." Mes
sage, page ~ Governor Scott says: "There is
floating debt of $160,0OO in the shape of bills
receivable in circulation" message, 1858,
p. A. -.
Here again Mr.. Chamberlain makes slight
error of $4,000. Mr.. Chamberlain says !:
"These bills were receivable at par in payment
of ali dues to the State. Should we have re-
issued them? Could we afford to reissue them
at 60 cents on the dollar and redeem them at
par? No." And yet that is exactly what they
did. If they redeemed 100000 of them, then
they re-issued them, for only S160,0O were out
when Governor Scott assumed control, and
there was an act authorizing the reissue of
them. Was Mr.. Chamberlain, the attorney
general of the State, ignorant of the existence
of the actf
To the list of errors and omissions we must
vet add one more No where in Mr.. Chamber
| laius speech does he give credit for any monies
paid ever to the new by the old administration.
The idea instilled is that Governor Scott's ad-
ministration not only had to raise the funds to
meet its own debts, but were compelled to pay
the debts of the preceding administration.
| Yet there was turned over to the present ad-
ministration $95, ,546.26, and the receipt OF 1t
is admitted by the treasurer. (See page lOo.)
This amount Mr. Chamberlain entirely ignores.
| If unlimited power of subtraction from the one
side and omission from the other is conceded,
it is easy to reach result that Will be PoIIl-
cally satisfactory. 1t will, however, hardly
produce q fair and just statement, and that is
what we had the right to expect from MIR.
Chamberlain's position and ability.
| The last item of finance which we shall ad-
vert to is the Blue Ridge bonds. Mr.. Cham
berlain's point on this is purely technical. An
endorsement is not, in legal phrase, a debt; but,
legally and practically, it is an obligation; and
if the obligation is incurred for one who is un-
able to pay, the endorser has to pay. MIR.
Chamberlain's argument is this: If you en-
dorse note for drunken idle vagabond, it is
not debt, oh no 1t is only contingent lia-
bilityl What comfort would there be in know,
ing that the liability was only contingent
| Anv business man who was foolish enough TO
give such an endorsement, would be WISE
enough to prepare to meet the note at maturi-
ty. But it is triAing with the subject to treat 1t
in that fashion.
IF the Blue Ridge Road is as solvent as the
other roads, for which the State has guaranteed
bonds. then the State runs no greater risk
That is the real issue. Can the Blue Ridge
meet its bonds at maturity? Governor Scott
decidedly says, no. "It would require about
s.. 600, 900 to put the road in running ORDER.
and that without the expenditure of more capi.
tai. the whole investment must remain as dead
capital" Unless we are prepared to give
another $4,000 900, the road cannot be compile.
ted if not completed, the road cannot pay in
terest on the debt; and if cannot pay interest
it cannot pay principal; and where, then, would
be the contingency?
Prudent men, embarking in business as Co
partners, usually fetter each other with obliga
tions not to endorse or guarantee. Experience
teaches that endorsements lead to bankruptcy
and they guard against it. Mr.. Chamberlain
would have us believe that it is a harmless