Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-03-29
Raforms Demanded. which Will
Almost Certainly be Enacted
by che LeRislature.

OF Its county government, trahsie'
x,ssTed the functions of certain count
'omcials to corresponding county o.
.E 6cers, aud that the fees, commission
zEfand emoluments collected by ther
the operations of such transfsr
are retained as perquisites.
THE RECORDER OF DEEDS
forms an exception to the rule, an
the duties of his Office are well I'D
ministered, all fees In excess OF hi
salary being turned over to the cit
treasury.
THE CITY MARsHAL.
I The duties of this officer are minis
terial, and involve no financial risk
The expenses of his Office. the salarie
of his deputies and his W sslsr,
$4,000 are paid by the city.
The incumbent testified that thu
Office needed no assistance from III
state, though last year there was col
lected in state fees $1,000, of which
he retained $500 in addition to hi
salary.
% THE CITY REGISTER.
h The city registers salary $4,000
80 and the salary of each of his clerks
~ and all Of the contingent expenses o;
his Office, are betrayed by the city
" Last year he received 81, 100 in tees
together with his salary and the
.6irect Income from fees in his OWL
Office, he claims as rightful per-
-9uisites.
I'M. THE COLLECTOR
5. receives a salary of S., 900 from the
T3ity and $5, 900 from the state. His
clerks and his deputies and all of his
ta6ontingent expenses, a~ggregating
about $46, 600, are paid by the muni-
ctpal government. The act passed
-i1h 1877, under which the Office is
managed designed that SIC, 900 should
b the limit Of the compensation Of
Q incumbent, but the laxity of the
i'd law is such that his income ex-
o(eds, $4,000 0 annually.
specifically upon the management
aaRd investigation of this Office.
tsHThe committee, having subp4naed
MT. R%osenblatt, required of him a
sWorn statement of his income from
al. sources, as derived through and
-bFVirtue of his Office. Taking two
days to consider the several questions
which had been propounded, he sub
plIted q statement to the effect that
d's fncome was, in round numbers,
$41,0 900 for the two last fiscal years
OF his incumbency, and that $9, 900
more was held, subject to litigation,
by the city, but which he acknowl-
edged due the state.
he admitted, upon taking the
etStds that his statement did not in-
clude about SIC. 900 which he had
madesthrough u private arrangement |
with . notary, by which the notarial |
1eeb collected through the Office were |
Saqe@ly divided between them. apd |
further admitted that, In violation |
and disregard Of a city ordinance re- |
quiriDg him 10 keep a deputy to take
euch,. Acknowledgements aud TO pay |
fees into the city treasury, he |
collected and retained such fees as
pl1tRites.
scIhfs was the only indirect source
OF which the collector admit
tsassharing, though it was apparent
that many thousands of dollars ad-
ditid1al were being collected, which
could not be traced to the city of st.
LG3Hf and certainly not to the treas
fhe state.
1hteffogaiion of the collector soon
developed the fact that 81 rs had
been charged for the Investigation OF
b titles of real estate dellnQueuts,
and of several lots included in our
investigation there was charged said
sum on each lot. He frankly admit
ted that he collected such sums with
0Htta4ytwarrant of authority of law
whatsoever, and that the charge was
nevesn enforced If an objection was
pEEssd.a
there'were between 1000 and 5000 of
thesR delinqueuts.
Ihe collector was asked if any
divide" was made with his attor-
neys. He denied that there was,
Though II was proven hat in 1873 the
amount of s272,0 900 was placed in the
hand OF five attorneys, ana that one
OF them had alone nearly $500, 900 of
delinquent tax bills for collection
apd, alisofsthe larger cases.
tie wasasked if he had requested
an attorney to run for the legislature
as his friend, and that he would give
MIN one-hfth of the attorneys fees of
the Office, and that he 1.-THE a~ttorneyl
would not even be required to an.
pear IN court.
BS1aeuhed it, but admitted that he
s"S oAS htLoIhCf luo Do |
siti4Htiot..oiIe of his five ATTORNEYS as
an endorsement to enter the general
assembly, as he was interested in the
electionsRf a United States senator +.
from S%:sf3ouis.
A consistent story, but how q
United States senator could be made
by ? tbpublican member was not ex-
planned.
The collector also denied any ill.,.
terest in his official advertisements
or That he received any rebate upon
them.
The late manager of the Dispatch
swore that,pnder the contract which
exlstedswith that paper, Mr.. Rosen-
oiatt received the entire proceeds
from all official advertisements until
q ae5t OF that paper Was cancelled. !
an4 tRefeefeer a rebate of one-third,
whifd Fis bot to go to Rosenblatt'
but wal ito De applied to the second
congressional district for political
purposes.
In this connection it was ascertain
ed thft mere than double rates were
ehSr1tNdN4F The newspapers for the
omEeEzsH &AItisements of the incum.
bent and. collected as costs against
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
1he. c0Iector also denied that any
rebates were made by his clerks
either'to' him or any one else, to his
kno Wledgei Al He testified that each of
his employees received the actual
amo4iE f@ssfhich they were carried
Oh the psS46hls of the city.
The testimony subsequently, re-,
veaied"shar q pernicious system of
rebates did exist, and that they were
not only known, but were directed
by the collector himself.
1t was also shown that he shared
personally iu .these rebates in ONT In.
stance.
Its1as prSveh aud not controversial
that one Hu'zler had quit the ooller-
tors office indebted to Mr.. R~osenbla,t
seveEAA bY4dxed dollars, and that the
secgHfxI@t the note Zone A. Vein .
which had been executed for such
debt dNas splaced on the municinal
paySAaAkI,91D per month ; that the
shashs1 Of the Office paid to Veil
.HH,lIiE