The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-05-08

larorilism for which no satisfactory apology 7
an be offered Nor can he shelter himself /
behind the opinion Of the Attorney General
HAT 4 position In the militia was not such !
al Office as dcbarred ono from being an 4
officer in the public free schools II Griffin, +
smith and Shaftcr were rendering actual !
service In the field TO which fact the unfor- I
tunate. people Of Limestone and Freest0ne /
counties win testify they certainly were
not performing their duties 1t the same I
time and at e different place as officers Of
the free schools; and such being the case, /
we know Of no law or rule Of equity or
principle Of morality that authorizes their
payment for services that they did not and
could not perform. Upon the Superinten
dent rests the responsibility Of thus expend-
ing the public moneys. Such conduct can
not be too severely reprehended. It indI-
Gates a IOOseness Of official morality that
stands in strange contrast with that Of the
officials Of other days, and is the more con-
spicuOus because It is exhibited in the con-
duct Of one whose example should be
worthy Of az imitation.
According to the testimony Of +. j. Da-
Wis %. SD, It will be seen that these men
were directed to refund their Communication
money. Their pay proper was retained.
By reference to the report Of the Adjutant
General, giving an abstract Of the disburse-
ment of moneys. etc., it viii be observed
that the fuel Communication of these men
did not amount 20 more than one hundred
dollars; so that the pay they received as
militia officers, after returning the commu-
tation money, exceeded twelve hundred dol
lars. While upon the subject of the i'm
proper disbursement Of public funds, which
were under the exclusive control of the Su-
perintendent, your committee would invite
the further attention of this honorable Leg
islature to the following facts, as disclosed
in the testimony Of w. c. Phillips CNo.
21), ]. D. Mccall Opp. 69-70 inclusiye), w.
D. Moore (No. 30, David Sheeks- CNo. 2s),
Fl. o. Heffter (No. 26), to-wit:
First. The appointment Of Cha' les Parker
by the Superintendent, as exaE Inc In the
Bureau of Education, and his payment as
such, while he was in the service Of the
United States as a detective. and for which
he drew pay from the General government
Second. That Stanley WEIGH was paid
as an employe in the superintendent Of
flee from the twenty-frst day of December,
1872. TO the twenty-frst day of january,
1878. and at the same time he was in the
employment of the State Journal Office, at
Austin, Texas.
Third That the Superintendent himself
drew double pay for the month of January,
| 1872. which was not rectiied until discOv-
| cred in the Office of the Comptroller.
Fourth. That notwithstanding the SUI
perintendent was furnished with free
ticket over the Central railroad, yet fol-
trips on said road he drew, upon an aver
age, more than twelve dollars per day fol-
travelling expenses.
| Fifth. That without the authority OF
law, he employed and caused to be paid out
of the school fund, attorneys, when there
were district attorneys to represent the
State. From careful examination of the
evidence it will be discovered that there is
no testimony tending to disprove the facts
which have been last enumerated.
Mr. Welch (No. 3S) says that he left the
employ of the Educational Department OF
the twenty-second day of last January, but
does not deny that he was, before leaving,
in the employment of the State Journal
and Mr. Newcomb (No 41), one of the
proprietors, himself testifes that Mr.. WelcI
assisted him in bookkeeping matters" be
fore formally employed-that is, before the
twenty-second of January last. In order tC
| justify the employment of attorneys we can
not think that the Superintendent will bC
permitted to plead the authority of the
Board of Education. Your committee, af
ter a most careful examination, have
wholly failed to discover any law permit
ting the expenditure of the school fund foi
such purpose; nor can your committed
conceive the necessity for so doing, Their,
being an attorney in each district whose
duty it is to represent the State in all mat
tiers, civil as well as criminal.
6. The unjustifable diversion of the on,
per cent school tax from the purposes fo
which it was designed by the law exhibits
character singularly willful and arbitrary
and has established precedent hitherto
unknown to the civil history of this coun
try-that the law is to be respected onl,
when it COMFORTS with the will of the off
Ger, and whenever the necessity, howeve
slight, occurs, affords no protection to TIL
citizen, though its language be ever 81
strong
z. As an evidence Of the extravaganza o
the Superintendent. Your committee invit,
attention to the cost of the clerical force
in his Office page 1927 This does no
include other expenses, which, if core
spending with the items above mentioned
would increase the cost-of~ maintaining tn,
central otIiee-ef~sne Department of Public
Seao5is to an amount truly alarming.
N g. That the high and responsible offic,
Of Superintendent Of Public Instruction ha
been used for political purposes, and made
to subserve partisan ends, will, in the opin
ion Of your committee, be the conclusion o
every. candid mind, from careful survey o
the evidence which your committee pre-
sent for the consideration of this honorable
Legislature. The testimony of Warner
Norton page 40 and G. Caldwell (No. 36)
places the fact beyond dispute, and YOU
committee are forced he painful ccnelu
sion, that the Department OF Public InstruC
ton, which ought to be entirely free iron
all political influences whatever, has beer
so Contaminated by partyism and the NAL
administration of its chief, as to be, in it
present condition. a curse rather than
blessing to the people. Section 3 of tn
Act Of November 30, 1871, gives the Super
intendent an unlimited control of that POI
ton Of the school fund which is paid int
the State Treasury; and availing himself o
that provision in the law. he has not hes
tated to withdraw from the possession O
the proper custodian of the public money
{ large sums. and afterwards fling voucher
to cover the same. Statement No. 81 Of tn
Comptroller shows that on the fourteenth
day of August, 1871, the Superintendent
drew. upon reGuisition, the sum Of fft
, thousand dollars, but did not obtain col
responding credit until April, 1873. NOR
than seven months afterwards. The Super
intendent having been permitted to draN
moneys. by requisition, from the treasury
thus relieving the Comptroller, from dutie
which are particularly incident to his office
It has been entirely impractica3ie for you
committee to ascertain whether or not an
frauds have been practieed other than sue
as appear in the evidence. Certainly, Tier
was every opportunity, through the mod
adopted for specializing with the publ
funds. ard imposing upon those who ma
have held such accounts and vouchers Q
were payable out Of said funds. It IS no
therefore to be presumed that. from tn
failure OF this committee to bring 70 Ugh
any other irregularities and improprie
ties upon the part Of the superintendent
aud his subordinatss, except those Whicl
f1,.. r,.rrn ~ I-nr