The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-01
TIE COUNTY SCHOo FRAUDS.
Another Letter from Commissioner
Grimke.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.

Your issue of this morning contains a reply
from ex-School Con. missioner Emery to the
charges made in my annual report of irregu
larities in the Office which he vacated last
January.
Mr. Emery is very much mistaken II he sup
poses that my statements are actuated by any
personal il-wlll towards himself My issue is
with the ex-school commissioner Of this coun'
ty, and beg leave to say at the outset that
If that official will establish the truth of his
assertions before any three unprejudiced citi
zens of this community, who shall be selected
In the way that arbitrator5 are usually chosen,
I will be among the first to acknowledge his
innocence.
That my attack is neither wanton nor unjust,
hope to be able to prove even to Mr.. Emery's
satisfaction. 1 had been but a short time In
office before 1 learned, from personal inter:
views with many of the teachers who had
been In Mr.. Emerys employ, that lie was in the
habit of offering to purchase their claims, and
at rates of discounts which appeared TO me
most exorbitant. I have seen good many OF
the teachers from different parts of the county,
and from but one OF them have l received
negative reply TO the question, "Dld Mr.. Emery
offer to purchase your claim ?" 1t was not
long before I learned that the school.houses,
referred to In my report had never been oulit,
although the claim for their erection had D.en
approved by Mr.. Emery. also learned that
the man in whose name the bill had been
rendered denied that he had any such claim
against the county, and further sta ed that he
had never seen the order drawn In his favor
Gould I, unier these circumstances, remain
silent? Here was Mr.. Emerys approval In
writing OF CAIN for $3.50 IN favor OF man
whose written declaration / hold that he
never had any such C. aim against the county,
and had never seen the pay certificate drawn
In his favor, and. to crown all, here was let:
ter from the clerk of the boatd OF trustees OF
the district in which the houses were said 10
have been built, stating that they were not
to be found. Now, ask Mr.. Emery, what
course would he have pursued under
these circumstances? Would he not have
felt in duty bound to call the attention OF
his superior officers? to this most disgraceful
condition OF affairs? Mr.. Emery. be 1t remem-
bered, was the sworn officer of the State, paid
by the state salary for experimenting all
school matters In the county, and the law e9-
pressly makes every act Of his subordinates,
the school trustees, subject TO MS supervisory ~
and makes him responsible for the same, By
recurring his written endorsement of approval
upon every claim, before the county treasurer
Is authorized to pay it. II MIR. Emery
has endorsed this claim with the belief that 1t
is a Just one, call upon him now to join me
in an effort to place the charge Of guilt where
it properly belongs.
10 regard to the discrepancy between the
amounts which teachers claim to have re-
celved and the pay certificates drawn IN their
favor, have only to say that had Mr.. Emery
left those books, to which he alludes, In the
school commissioners office, tohere they De-
lor,ged, when he vacated 1t, instead of remov-
ing them. as he did, it might have saved US
both great deal OF trouble. as they doubtless
would have explained many matters which
have puzzled me. However, 1t Is not TOO late
now. land hope, for his own sake, that he will
insist upon an examination OF these books by
some unprejudced parties, with the view OF
setting him right before the community.
E. MONTAGUE GRIMKE,
School Commissioner Charleston County.
Charleston, November 80, 1871.