The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-05-31
RADICAL BOOKKEEPING.
Another Protest from General
Fund.
OPEN LETTER NO. IL

OPEN LETTER NO. IL
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDIANAPOLIS
JOURNAL.
1t Is reported to me that you said on Sstur-
day last, "WhY doesn't the Sentinel publish
the dead letter lists for the last ten years?
They would be quite as fresh and thrilling
ss the communications of General
Fund which nobody reads and every.
body laughs at" Who got off that bull?
Who ever heard of a newspaper pub
fishing "dead- d-letter-lists- tor the -last-ten-
years, "even In the pslmiest days OF Repub-
licsn corruption? If nobody has read
my communications, why should every
Quid rides? Does the ''sole proprietor?n
He got his distinguishing title tor fifteen
dollars paid by me. Does your first Re-
publican treasurer laugh? He has
credit in my bank for one thousand COL
lars, which he was enormously required
TO pay on his settlement by the auditors
books. Does the "corn stalk militia"
general laugh7 He served his
country on the bloody field by
whitewsshing the governors house at
S. rs per wash. understand
that your Mr.. Hsnnipg has risen to ex-
pain the manner in which payment was
made TO him for plumbing done for the
Republican Supreme Court and the Re-
publican state officers. rave no cause for
difference with Mr.. Hanning, or any other
creditor OF the state whom paid. He says
his bill was served at the request OF the
judges in order that their part might be
paid by them. and that of the officers
by them. Atsr that was
done by him, why was net the
one amount charged to Expenses OF the
Supreme Court" and the other to "Ex-
pense OF State Officess," and Why were not
both paid out OF the general treasury
Whatever that was) instead OF being
charged in one lump upon me? Witness:
April %, 1868.
No. $40. John q. Hanning, plumb
ing. supreme court and state offices,
@. F. Returns TO HIS MUTTON.
1 now return to your "men OF '65" ct
s:quentes. Your auditor and treasurer
Q me into Office with that year. They
wiped out the old slate and commenced
lew your work of reform; to which they
General Assembly OF that yesr adjourned
it left in force "An act making general
appropriations for the years 1865 and 1866, !"
[Approved March 6, 1861 Was that act
vain and nugatcry one? It so appears
The appropriations made for the year 1865
were exceedingly liberal. The audit n OF
state was the administrative officer, sworn
and charged by law with the execution OF
the legislative will in the absence OF the
General Assembly. 1t was his
MOST IMPORTANT DUTY TO THE PUBLIC.
If he failed in that he was, as a factor in
the civil service of the state, worse than q
failure. He fsiled. He could speak after
his retirement and official death only by
mis- official record. Did he leave any? He
did not. When the treasurer was sworn
and placed in bis responsible Office, the
Legislature imposed upon him the execu-
ton of can act to raise revenue for state
purposes, for the years one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-fve and one
Thousand eight hundred and sixty-six."
[Approved March 2, 1861. That law su-
Ihorized the levy and collection of "s tax
for state purposes of twenty-five cents on
each one hundred dollars of the value OF
all property entered Tor taxation in the
general list of taxsbles, and seventy-five
cents on each poll subject by law to taxa
tiop." 1t was his principal duty to collect
the enormous revenue produced by this
levy and pay 1t into the treasury TO my
credit, and report to the auditor OF ate
accordingly. This he did not do. 1t was
his further duty to pay out
from the treasury no money eX-
cept upon warrants drawn upon
me and supported by an appropriation,
either permanent or special, covering the
total amount on any account. This duty
be failed to discharge. Was it through
ignorance2 Ii so, he was incompetent and
unfit for the place, and should have been
removed.
HE KEPT NO APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT,
and, therefore, could not know at any
time whether he had q balance OF an sp-
preparation to run upon, or had exceeded
the limit and violated his oath and the law
prescribing his duties. Did neither of
them have the fear OF the embezzlement
law of 1851 before his eyes? How
many times do you suppose they
| made themselves amenable to the
courts of Marion county for violations of
that law7 It is problem not difficult to
solve. When the General Assembly con-
vened in special session Ia November,
1865, at the call of the governor, did they
render to that body any intelligible ac-
count of their stewardship during the ten
months prior therefor Did the treasurer
show how much he had received into the
general fund" rs the result OF the bur-
densoms levy made in January, or show