The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-03-23
AUDITOR SOURBECK AND THE
SLANDEROUS REPOSITORY

The following article from James r,
Sourbeck, Esq, our County Auditor, is a
reply to and complete refutation of the
slanderous attack in the Repository of last
week. II would seem that our neighbors
are anxious to find a mares nest, first
trying it on Sheriff Rauch, and now on
Mr.. Sourbeck and Mr.. Fessler, The Re
pository seems to have been out OF humor
ever since last election, and in seeking
revenge they do not seem to care whether
or not their statements be true.
If the Repository would stick to facts
and dish up truth, we would say, "all
right" But, unfortunately, our neigh,
bors seem to have peculiar aversion to
these articles, and hence we are COM
PEELED at times to speak rather plain to
them. They do not seem to have been
brought up to tell truth and shame the
devil. 1t is great pity!
The following is Mr.. SourbeCk's article,
and it is addressed to the editors of the
Repository, who agreed to insert itin their
paper this week:
Editors of the Ohio REPOSITORY
notice an article in your paper of the
18th inst. which does me great injustice,
and l assume that you will permit me to
reach your readers with brief state
ment
The writer charges me with miscon-
duct
1st. In notrequiring an additional bond
of Mr.. Greiner upon his receiving the
proceeds of bonds sold for the school dis
trict.
I'd. In giving to Mr.. Greiner an order
for Sc, $40 on February "a, 1875.
On the first point: have no knowl-
edge of any law that requires the county
auditor to fix the amount of a school
treasurer's bond, or to require him to
give additional bonds. That is left with
the board of education. Further, the
Sl1, 900 referred to in the article were in
his hands in September last, and the
$4,000 Tor thereabouts) from the sale OF
bonds, learn, came into his hands on
September l5th his settlement was made
with the Auditor September goth. | took
my office on the 9th day of last Novem-
ber, so that Mr.. 6. had the S3l 900 in his
hands before l came into Office, and at
the date of his settlement with my pre-
decessor. l did not suppose it was my
duty to go back of my term and scrutlnlze
the settlements of my predecessor.
On the second point: The $6,840 did
not go into Mr.. Greiner's hands on Feb
"a, 1876; the order for that sum was
drawn that day. 1t was not drawn at a
later day and dated back, as intimated in
the article. The matter occurred thus
The law of April 20, 1878, (vol. 70, o. L.
1874, requires the payment, by the county
treasurer, to the school treasurer of any
district, between the 10Th and 30th Of
December of each year, the estimated
two-thirds as near as may be, of the cur
rent collection of taxes assessed and col
lected for his school district, to be treated
as an advance payment. The law pro-
vides that the auditor and treasurer shall
keep just and accurate account of such
advancements for final adjustment at the
semi-annual settlement, February al d
August. Under this law, between De-
Cember 18th and 30th, made an esti-
mate of what supposed would be col J.
lected in Alliance school district, and al
lowed the county treasurer to advance
the two-thirds of it to Mr. Greiner.
An account was kept Of the advance
ments, and on February oath the adjust
ment of these advancements was made
by warrant for the gross sum ($6, ,S4O)
in lieu of the evidences held by the coun-
ty treasurer for these advancements.
Though this was the date of my warrant,
the advances had been made in Decem-
ber, as the law required. This warrant
was drawn on the same date as the war
rants for all the other treasurers in the
county, advancements having been made
to all of them in like manner.
In all this did what l supposed to be
my plain duty under the law, and do not
now see how l could have done other
wise. The article says the clerk of the
school board notified me of the amount
in Greiners hands, and the amount OF
his bond. | received no such notice
until after the advancements had been
made, December 1S, 1875, as above stated.
But had l tie notice before l do not see
what else l could have done, l could
not demand an increase of the bond, as
l understand my duty, and | regarded
the law of April 80, 1873, as binding on
me. JAMES L. SoURBECK.
March 20, 1875.