The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-03-20

Fhs HsaiSsf Ssfn9GS sarSett Il Bennett nSsas 4 20.

raj and Just what We expected. Bill Dur
dett, the Senator; was Mr., Walkers right
hand man in the last Senatorial contest,
and no doubt tho Treasurer did all he
could to "whoOp" up the Caucus in his
interest, Therefore We are not surprised
To seo tho TSrELLIGESCER rebuked with
much yirtuous indignation for pFcsum-
inp to concur with the conclusions reach
cd by the Investigating Committee. The
leading point made by the COurier in boz
half Of the private pudding ring at Char
lesion is that the State Of West Yir-
Vinia suffered no detriment at their hands
or, in other words, that what they got In
the way Of bribes for directing tho
public funds into the Golfers Of certain
favored banks was not paid at tho ex'
pense Of the State. This statement We do
not admit, even supposing that 1t would,
II true, purge these private pudding
officials Of any wrong doing. We main
tain that when man Is placed in charge
Of tue public funds Of this or any State
Of tho Union, and Is deputed by law to
contract with certain depOsitaries for
their safe keeping at tho best going rate ol
interest, 1t Is his duty as a faithful and
conscientious public officer to make tho
most money he can, not for himself, but
for tho State that pays him, The law
under which the public deposits were let
out on interest provided for bids from
responsible banks, and under that law the
First National Bank Of Wheeling, bid 4
por cent, aud the Second National at
Parkersburg, bid 81 pOr cent, and yet
while their bids were higher than all the
other banks Of tho State, they had, with
one or two exceptions, less money. For
instance, the First National Bank Of
Parkersburg (Mr. ]. N, Camdcn's bank)
had tho use Of S92,3O3 20 at 8 per cont,
while the Second National Bank General
Jacksons bank) had only SS,O02 40 at 81
per cent. Now, 1t Is notorious that Mr..
Camden was Democratic politician, and
while we charge no corrupt COlluslon be-
tween his bank and tho Treasurer or
Auditor, yet II Is certain from the ex.
hibit that hc was favored at the expense
Of the interests Of the State. Else why
was not his bank checked on more freely
and larger amount left on depoait
in the bank that paid more In
terestY While this Is not tho ex.
act point that we are seeking to make
In answer to the Courier II seems we'll
enough to show that tho diSbursing
officer at Charleston was not sOlicitouS
about making all the money possible for
tho State. And this fact Is still more
strongly shown by tho testimony Of Mr..
Cabell and Senator Grantham before the
Investigating Committee. It Is there
shown concluSiyely that not only were
the banks represented by these gentle
mon willing to pay the highest going rate
Tor the use Of tile public funds "a per cent
but even more. Not only were they will.
inc to do 40, but they did actually pay
more, for II appeats by their testimony
that they paid 8 per cont (thc average
rate) and handsomebribes in addition, tc
the two Burdetts and the Auditor. Now
We maintain that II these officials had
q right to drive these bargains
with certain banks in their own
interests, they had still better right to
drive them III tho interests Of the State
that paid them for their services. They
either had OF had not a right to contract
above the ostensiblc rate paid by these
banks, and II they had 1t was their duty
to contract In the interest Of the State
That they had thisright isShown by their
contracts with the First National Bank
Of Wheeling and the Second National ol
parkersburg. Now since the Merchants
Bank at Charleston was willing 10 pay
land did pay more than . per cent for
the use Of tho public funds, why did not
The whole per cent go into the State
Treasury, just tho same "a tdid from the
First National Of Wheeling or the Sec.
ond National Of parkCrsburg. This ia
the question that We desire the apollo
getic Walker TO answer.
But setting aside this view Of the case,
we come to the gravamcn Of the accul
sation against these private pudl
ding officials, which is that they, in vio-
latioh Of Section AZ Of Article vi. Of The
Constitution, and Section 8 Of Chapter
IXXv. Of the Acts Of 1872 and 1873, did
demand and receive from certain banks
certain sums Of money "ior the perform
anceD Of their official duties, which cor.
duct on their part Ia declared by law to
Be a felony, and punishable as such BY
Imprisonment in The penitentiaty. whal
can be palmer than the express language
Of the Acts on this subect2 We quote
Section (aboye referred toy, as follows
'That II any executive OF judicial OH
Cef Of this State shall demand OF receive
from any corporation, company, or per-
son, any money, testimonial, OF othCt
valuable thing, for tic performance
Of his official OF public duties,
or for refusing Of failing 10 perform the
same, shall lie deemed guilty Of felony,
and, Upon conviction thereof, shall be i'm.
ptiAoned III the penitOntiaty for not less
than Ave years, nor more than ten years;
aud shall, moreover, be forever disquali.
fed from holding aty office OF position Of
honor, trust or profit in this slatr.H
Acting under the Law OF the State the
investigating Committee Of the House Of
Delegates composed Of livc Democrats
and two Rtpublicansy found the Bntdctta
(iathet and son) and Auditor Bennett
guilty Of corruption in Office, and accord.
insly inpeached them al fWhigh crimes and