New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-09-23
HSaS1ksa. We " e ~ ~ -; ~ -
THE RpAD III Wv LII It'll Inr

THE BROOKLYN EMBEZZLEMENT
The sudden fight of Stuart, the principal
actor in the frauds perpetrnted on the Brooklyn
Boaru OF Education, has suspended the judicial
inquiries except so far as Alderman Jones is
concerned. Enough, however, has reached the
public ear to create the strongest desire that the
matter should be laid bare down to the very bot
tom, whether Stuart be extradted or not. The
details that have become known go to show
that the responsibility of the delinquent and
the blind trustiulness of those associated with
nm have alone made the frauds possible. SO
lar as can be gathered his plan of operations
was simple in the extreme. He was the recjDi-
ent OF the book money, that is, the money paid
for class books by the children This he was
bound to pay into IN account with the Mechan-
les Bank. He kept large sum in hand from
which he sometimes obliged contractors and
Others by cashing their warrants. From this
sum he doubtless helped himself when occasion
required, and when the time came to make
good the amount appropriated, it seems TO have
been done by the aid Of fictitious warrants.
These warrants were, in fact, checks by the
Board on its various bankers in favor of trades
men, contractors ard others to whom money
was due. They were filled up either Ivy
/ stuart or the under secretary, and were
countersigned by several members of the
Board. The fraudulent warrants were to fcti.
uous names or firms with whom the Board had
mo dealings. Two or three of these have been
presented and paid it is alleged. to the credit
iof Alderman Joness bank account How the
others were collected has not yet appeared. If
The sham names were filed in and indorsod nv
stuart, he has placed himself on the very verge
il not within the limit. of forgery, by English
law
But how came all the genuine signatures to
he attached! Did the persons signing append
their signatures in blank for Stuart's convent
ence, or did they inquire the object and purpose
of the warrants! The forms seem to have been
taken ont of book with stub and common
To each warrant. The stubs are produced in
court now. Have they ever been examined by
The audtorsg Has no inquiry been made rs
to the persons to whom they are payable Are
there no ledger accounts with the contractor
and other persons with whom the Board HAD
dealings? In Il word, are there any accounts
at all, or was the accounting and auditing of the
Board mass of confusion i'm which fraud could
escape undctcctcd. The persons by whom the
warrants were signed were the officers of the
Board standing in fiduciary capacity Has
there been that gross negligence which involves
personal liability even where there is no partic-
ipation in the fraud Another serious Qucs-
ton will be asked--Was there any sinister mo-
tive on the part of any of those by whom Stuart
was surrounded. which assisted him To cscaDc|
detection Did he oblige any of his coadiutors
with loans or other financial assistance? Are
they all perfectly free from taintG These oues-
tions the public is asking and they will have
to be answered. The conduct of the prosecu-
ton will he narrowly watched to see that the
fierce light of judicia inquiry is thrown equally
OH all and none allowed to remain conveniently
in the hhnhnW.