The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-02-03
IMPEACHMENT YESTERDAY.

After the organization of the Senate as
High Court of Impeachment yester-
day morning, the trial of EDWARD A.
BENNETT State Auditor was proceeded
with
Mr.. Z. L. Bill, chief clerk in the Aud
itors office was first called and examined
r2garding the insIraI C, If &C iors of
the Auditor. He testified that he knew
nothing about them, as they did not
come under his observation. He thought
that the Auditor kept a private record
OF them, hut there was no official record
in the Office
Mr.. George Adams WAS then recalled
He gave the date of the draft drawn by
the Auditor on the First National Bank,
and alluded 10 in our issue of ofyesterday, rs
March Dist 1875, and with it presented
private memorandum of his own to
the effect that the money was charged to
the State on or about the llth OF April,
1878.
Mr.. William a Cracraft, clerk in the
Auditors Office, was the next witness.
He testified that more than twenty-five
foreign corporations were doing business
IN the State during the years 1873 74-75.
He did not know how much money was
received from them by the Auditor,
there being no official record, but he did
not think he received the same sum from
each company. About forty certificates
were issued in 1875. though some OF the
companies ceased their business in the
Stste afterwards The Auditor himself
generally collected these fees.
Soon after tins testimony was adduced
recess was taken
After recess. it was announced by
Manager Stuart that it had been agreed on
to acknowledge the receipt of certain fees
by the Auditor from different insurance
companies, and soon after the managers
rested their case.
Mr.. Arnett, of counsel for the respon-
dent, then proceeded to open the case for
the defense He recited the charges
against the Auditor. He alluded 10 the
first article, charging the Auditor with
having Iailed t. make sem,-anI ual re-
ports To the Governor of all monies re-
ceived by h..., iuas!i sch rs he neglected
To account in his report tor these insur-
ance fees. He took the ground that the
Auditor was not required to account
for any but public monies received
and disbursed by him; that these
fees which he received from insurance
companies under the retalIatory insur-
ance law, were perquisites of his office,
and he was not required TO account for
them. For an officer to report 10 the
Executive how he had received and dis.
bursed his private means was an absurd
Ity. The Secretary of State made no
such report, and il WAS generally thought
that neither the Governor nor the State
cared about private tees.
Mr.. Arnett then took up the second
article, charging embezzlement in that
the Auditor had appropriated large fees,
which should have gone into the treas
urv. He claimed that these insurance
fees did not belong to the treasury; that
the Auditu- was entitled TO fees for
the redemption Of land, and that he
had equal right 10 these insurance
fees in addition 10 lis salary, because the
law was passed creating them tor the ex-
press purpose of ccmpensatlng the Audi
tor. for the additional trouble and labor
he wasput to in examining these matters.
Most States had insurance commissioners
at high salaries to do this work. Here 1t
WAS put on the Auditor, and it was the
evident intention of the law that
he should be paid in this way.
The money did not belong unto the
Treasury at all; out even if the Auditor
had miscOnstrued the law, he did IT with
no criminal intent; therefore, while the
money might be recovered by civil suit,
the respondent could not be punished for
having committed crime.
Regarding the argument made with
Mr.. Cabell, that he (the Auditor) should
receive 500 for deposit in the Mer-
chants Bank of Charleston of S25,OoO,
received from the Baltimore aud Ohio
Railroad, alluded to the third article,
counsel claimed that the Auditor received
this money not in his official capacity,
but as agent of the Railroad Company.
That it was not State money until de-
posted; that his official duty was not In
volved, and that therefore 1t could not be
charged that he accepted n bride to ln-
fuence his official duty.
Counsel in this way argued differ
erent articles at some length, and pend
ing his argument the Court adjourned.