The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-11-17


$2,lG0, about which the Governor had SC
much to say that was really m'HItHm IN
parro, except the testimony Of f. L. Bill,
First Clerk ia the Auditors office, who
states, (see page 2O) that the money was
all the time IN the bank TO the credit OF
the Auditor, and that from the confusion
produced by the correspondence, 1t was
necessary to make thorough investigation
to ascertain in what way and for what
interest the certificate of deposit was
to be taken, which was done, and the
money placed to the credit of the State
by means of certificate of deposit, as soon
as could be done. (See page 70 OF the
printed JournaL) Why the Governor
or any one else should ever have consid-
cred the Auditor worthy of blame in re-
gard to this transaction, certainly sur.
passes comprehension; rather should
we suppose that all would unhesitatingly
accord him unstinted praise for his faith
ful and efficient discharge of his duty in
connection with matter So intricate and
important
In respect to the commission of two
hundred dollars accepted by the Auditor
during his first term of office from the
Merchants Bank of Charleston, as also
in regard to the eight hundred dollars
received by Treasurer John ). Burdctt,
likewise during his previous term, there
is no controversy; but that these matters
are not proper subjects of impeachment
now, seems to us scarcely To require argu-
mcnt. We may and doubtless
will at an early day, publish n
list of the authorities on that subject.
Our purpose now Is particularly to treat
the evidence, and will return thereto Mt
once, after interpreting the remark that
even if these events had occurred during
the present term, they in themselves con-
stitutc no ohcnse since they were extra
official in their character, the acts not OF
officers, but of individuals; aud therefore
not proper subjects of examination.
As respects the accusations against the
Auditor of taking illegal fees, or of APP
propriating the fees charged insurance
companies to his own use as perquisites
of his office, it surely does appear to
Us. especially since the publication of the
Attorney General letter upon that sub
iect, IA the most arrunt nonsense c-thc
mos. utterly idle and foolish talk, for 1t
Is well known that he must have acted
with a corrupt motive, either in charging
the fee, originally, or in nppropriating
them to his own use subsequently. And
that be could under no circumstances be
guilty of anything more than Il mistake
in Judgment, honestly committed, Is per
iccLly manifest To- every man OF COM
mon sense. and that this is II conStruc-
tion of the law which it seems to war
rant, Is fully established by the fact, that
the law officer Of the State, upon pre-
scntution of the case, concurrcd with the
Auditor, decision in every particular.
Confident that this subject will not
and cunnot, be it viewed IN whatever
light. and no matter with what jaundiced
vision, be considered by any one
as worthy of the slightest
consideration in matters Of inpcacl-
mcnt, We summary dispose of
it, and pass onto the evidence introduced
for the purpose Of establishing some act
alleged to br criminally committed dur-
iug the Trcasurcr's present term.
Upon this point We hesitate not to
assert that there Is not one particle Of
evidence excepting alone the statement
of B. +. Harrison that, when IN Charles
ton, John ). Burdctt Treasurer, said TO
him that if his lHurrison'sl bank would
pcrommodatc his son with II loan Of
Twenty-Five Hundred Dollars, that he
would favor the bank in the line Of State
deposits, so far as they could. lSce pas"
- near top of the printed journal Of the
llou of Delegates. Was there any
thing wrong in that promise? So far a
he could, would be taken under every
presumption of law to mean so tar IL he
could properly. And therefore II was
not an improper offer. Even if he had
promised to doso far as he could, mean
ing SO far us was in his power, there could
be no substantial charge contriyed out of
il. For there l. no law directing how, or
in what manner, he shall draw his draft,
nor Is there any law specifying how much
shall be left with reference to the Others
in each State depository. If there were
a law on our statute book declaring that
the drafts should be So drawn upon the
State repositories SO as to leave
these deposits as nearly cqu
as possible, then il might,
with propriety, be said that
II premise to favor bank to the extent
of discriminating against the other State
repositories, would be aviolation ofduty,
But the Treasurer, and it is about the
only prcrogntlve left him, notwthstand-
ing he gives heavy bond is lett by law
at liberty to draw on any State dePosi
tory and to whatever extent be pI"a-cs.
From these considerations we dcducc
the conclusions
Flrst-That the offer spoken of by Mr..
Harrison, upon every presumption OF
law and by Just Interpretation of Ian
guagc. meant only that 50 far as he Mr..
Burdctt. State Treasurer could properly
do so, he would favor the Shcphcrdslown
bank.
Sccond-That i. be meant that h.
would favor the bank to the extent Of
discriminating in the matter Of deposits
agaus, other State repositories, IN favor
oil that bank, he was making an offer -
do an act not prohibited by law, for tn"
law is silent rs to the manner and extent
10 which he shall draw tor money on the
State repositories This is all the cvi-
dpucc OF legal character showing that
no act was done or proposed to be done
by Treasurer Burdctt during his present
term which is even charged ~ wrong,
and that We hav" shown J. altogether
without criminaiiIy, or even improPriety,
so tar as any law upon the subject Is
concerned.
attempt was made, which, however,
equally failed, to show that the
Auditor had lailcd to make report of
the fees obtained from his office for ccrti.
ticatc, OF authority and examination and
filing the annual statements OF lnsur.
ance Companies, and for tie redemption
OF land.
There is no law requiring such reports.
When the Governor was asked Il The law
re,ulrad surh rrpOrt he answered that