The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-11-11

money into the Treasury BY which the
National Ban Ks alone were made State
repositories. The other sections OF the
acts of Go and 90 were re-euactad, and
those acts repealed.
On the Sd day of March, 1868, the
first section of the Act of 1867 was
amended by the Legislature, SO as to
add the Merchants Bank Of Charleston
to the list of State repositories.
The Code of West Virginia, chapter
l7,re-enscts existing legislation reatiVeto
the Treasury receipts and disbursements,
and adds, mainly from the Code of Nlr.
ginia, number of provisions prescrib-
ing what accounts are to be kept OF re-
ceipts, how payments from the treasury
are TO be made what accounts OF appro-
priations and disbursements are to be
kept, and what accounts with individuals,
how the Auditor is to report, what shall
be considered office hours, how the duties
OF Auditor or Treasurer shall be dis
charged in case of the absence of either
or both, and defines the fiscal year.
Throughout all Of this aud all subse'
ouent legislation, the first section OF the
Act of 1868, quoted above excluding the
Auditor and Treasurer from the duty OF
handling or depositing money, and lnvsl-
idating all payments made to them or IN
any way save through State deposlto-
ary, remained substantially unchanged
1t 80 remains to this day.
A payment to the Auditor or Treasu-
rer is no payment into the treasury. The
party making it is liable to the State in
case his money fails to reach the treasu'
ry. A payment to either is payment
to the individual, not to the officer,
and as there is no official du'
ty connected with the receipt
OF money paid to either, SO there
can be no official liability by reason OF
any disposition that may be made oft
This brings us to consider the main
charge preferred against the officers In
question, by the House Committee of In
vestigatlon. As to the Treasurer, it Is
! that he made fraudulent and corrupt
contract with the Merchant Bank ot
/ Charleston, "whercly partial and un-
lust distribution and deposit Of State
moneys were made for the special use
of and benefit of the said bank, in con-
! sideration for which the Treasurer re.
ceved 81 ,OGO, &c,
As to the Auditor, it Is charged Hrst,
that he too made ~ partial and unjust
deposit and distribution Of the state
funds in favor OF said Merchants Bank OF
| Charleston, receiving therefor 5000 and
second, that he made proposition to the
| President OF the First National Bank OF
( Charleston, to use his official influence
and power to control deposits in favor "i
said bank, provided he WIRE paid com
mission for his services. Now, il cannot
| be doubted that if it we're the official duty
| of either of these officers TO receive Sr
deposit public money, then the charge OF
partial and unjust deposit, If substantial
ted would hold. Yet, as the law dis
tinctly forbids payment of money oih'
cisIv to either, and denies to each and to
both the official control or direc'
tion of receipts and deposits, ii
/ is difficult to SEQ how, as officers
thew could net in the matter at all.
How connect official misconduct with HI
act which the law says if done at all
must be done by the individual, not by
the officer?
Certainly if the receipt or deposit o
public money is not An official act, but
may as lawfully be done by any private
individual as by either Auditor or Trea'
surer, then official responsibility or such
penalties as follow the violation Of ot1cia,
duty, cannot be inflicted.
The second charge against the Trea'
surer is that he cOnniyed at bargain
whereby hts son, clerk in his office, sold
the information in his possession con-
cerning the condition and needs of the
! State funds. and also the influence Of the
/ Treasurer's office, to secure the Mer-
chants Bank of Charleston an undue
share of State deposits.
So far as this charge relates to the
, Treasurer, we have very decided opin'
ion. In the whole volume of testi.
lnony upon which the charges rested
there is not sentence, line, word or
syllable to support it. Every particle Of
testimony taken with reference to this
charge contradicts it datIy, positively,
uncompromisingly. The witnesses testify,
ing on this point are \. b. CABELL, }. >
BuRDETr and W. 7. BURDETT. Each in
his own way, and all Of them with EN-
phsss, deny that the Treasurer had any
knowledge of the arrangement between
his son and the Merchants Bank.
The second charge against the Treas
/ urer can therefore only be considered Ms
belittling, by its very absurdity, all the
others, and raising the gravest doubts
concerning the sincerity and good faith
of the whole prosecution.
The only theory upon which this count
| in the Indictment can be explained Is the
necessity which the prosecution apparent