The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-04-04

L CepI1UCc Vi Tie ulOney anu TeluSal lOBlFc
a receipt for it "in this kind of business )"
the presentation and payment of these
| fraudulent warrants at the treasury when,
even if they were valid, there were no
funds applicable to their payment; the
frank confession of Parker that he paid
them because he thought the impcach-
ment of Scott would be q much greater
calamity than the expenditure Of the
| money could be, and the equally frank
confession Of members of the House that
they were paid for their votes against
impeachment, all prove beyond the pos
sibility of doubt that S4S,645 was drawn
from the treasury on these fraudulent
vouchers, through combination and
conspiracy on the part Of Governor Scott,
Treasurer Parker and Patterson, for the
purpose of bribing members of the House
of Representatives to vote against the
impeachment of the Governor and Treas
urer for high crimes and misdemeanors
against the State. Add to this the con-
fession Of Speaker Moses that he received
$15,0 900 of the States money from Gov
ernor Scott "for carrying out his pur-
pose" by o violation of parliamentary
rules on the floor of the House, and the
story is complete. 1t will be observed
that although the testimony herewith
submitted is entirely consistent in all es-
sential particulars, yet there is a wide
discrepancy in the matter of the issuing
of these warrants. Ex-Governor Scott
testifes that be never issued them that
it was his habit to leave small number
of blank warrants with his private secre-
tary to.be used during his absence, and
that he can only account for the war
rants in question on the supposition that
they were taken clandestinely from his
Office; whereas ex-Treasurer Parker tes-
titles that Scott, although he signed these
warrants in blank, gave them to Patter-
son to fill up, and insisted on Parker's
paying them when presented-not know
ing what amount Patterson would want,
"but supposing the scoundrel would
make it as large as he could" and the
testimony of some of the other witnesses
is confrmatory of Parker's in this regard.
The committee are unable to accept Gov.
Scott's version of the matter. Assuming
that it WAS his habit, as be testi6es that
it was, to have left a small number of
blank warrants with bis private secretary
to be used during his absence, he also
testifes that he never left any blank war
rants with his private secretary or clerk
while he was present in Columbia; and
as he also sestifes that he was not alb
sent during the pending Of the iinpeach-
ment proceedings, which he says ended
December %, 1871, it is evident that ne
did not leave these warrants with his
private secretary or clerk during that
period. The fact is, the impeachment
proceedings did not actually end until
January "a, 1872, and the journals of
both Houses bear evidence that he was
not absent during the session of the Gen
eral Assembly, which finally adjourned
March 13, 1872-long after these war
rants had been not Only issued, but paid;
so that it is evident that he did not leave
these warrants with his private secretary
or clerk either during the pendency of
the impeachment proceedings or at any
time afterwards. Nor does it seem at all
probable that he left these warrants with
his private secretary at any time before,
for be also testifes that such of the blank
warrants he left with his private secre-
tary as had not been used during his ab-
sence were delivered back to him on his
return. If these warrants were left with
his private secretary and were not deliv.
cred back to him, as was the practice,
but had been taken clsndestinely from
his Office, why did he not make an effort
to prevent their payment by the Treas
urer, in case they should be presented
for payment with the blanks filled up, as
we'll as to secure the arrest of the parties
presenting them for payment, as he
would have done if he had left blank
checks with his private secretary, and
they had been taken clanolestinely from
his office? He testifes that it was nearly
year afterwards that he heard of these
large payments, or rather saw them pub
lished. Assuming that he never thought
of his duties in the matter until then,
why did he not take such action as
would right this great wrong? The
transaction was as readily traceable in
the treasury then as it is now--the par
ties who received the money, and the
parties to whose benefit it was applied.
If these warrants had been stolen from
his Office, and filled up in fraud, and en-
dor,ed in forgery, why did he not take
such action as would bring the perpetra-
tors to justice, if not bring back the
money to the treasury If he had a
theory, as he substantially testi6es he
had, that Patterson was the man who
had taken these warrants and filled them
up, and gotten the money as q means of
getting elected United States Senator,
why did he not take such action as would
bring the guilt home to Patterson and
defeat his election, and thus prevent
thief and forger from representing the
State of South Carolina in the Senate of
the United States, and kill off political
rival and Personal enemy at the same
time? Patterson's threat to prove him
party to the fraud was a most cogert rea
sol why he should at once prove himself
clear of it. His leaving the Office soon
afterwards neither released him from his
duty to redress the wrong which had
been done to the State, nor relieved him
from the necessity of removing the stain
which had been put upon his reputation.
That he did nothing to determine or cor
rect or expose such fraud would be re-
garded under any circumstances as an
evidence of criminal indifference, and
must be regarded under all the circum-
stances of the case as proof OF COM
plicity.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
JOHN r. COCHRAN, Chairman.
HENRY A. MEETZE,
On part of Senate.
S. DIBBLE,
GERHARD MULLER,
J. G. BLUE, on part of House.