Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-10-22
Lancaster fnteIligenrer.
MONDAY SvENrNa, OCT. "a, 1889.
A TroubIesome Question,

rassment In discussing one OF the leading
issues of the campaign, the management
of the state treasury. That is a pre-
eminent question this year. 1t is made
80 by o long succession of political
events in this state. 1t was the issue
upon which Mr.. Charles S. Wolfe hung
out his flag in 1881, when he polled
nearly ten thousand more Independent
votes than did Senator Stewart, with all
the powerful organization, leaders, news
papers aud money that were behind his
canvass. In his campaign Wolfe charged
that Mr.. Livsey, the present
cashier OF the treasury and the Re'
publican candidate for state treasurer,
was a mere creature of the treasury
ring, at the head Of which was Chris.
Magee. The Republican convention this
year, against the protest of that sagac-
ious politician, NJ. 5. Quay, nominated
this same Livsey. He was not the Sc
lection of his party. lie was not the free
choice of the convention. A majority
of the delegates were secured for him
by corrupt means.
His nomination means an endorse
ment of the old treasury ring with all
that this implies. AS Mr.. Wolfe has said
In his published letter, "Livsey is simply
the creature of Chris. Magee, and, if
elected, Magee will virtually be treasurer
of the commonwealth. | think the
mission of the Independents is to whip
the candidate for treasurer, at least by
not voting ut all, or, IL the Democrats
nominate suitable man, by voting for
him." And in view of this the Public
Ledger, speaking for the conservative
business interests of Philadelphia, wants
voters ito be wary about candidates for
state treasurer aud to " keep clear Of
any one groomed by patrons of the pres
ent system"
What that "present system is no one
knows better than Senator Stewart
and no one knows better than he that
the abuses of it required the passage by
the Legislature this session of the
Humes law" which Stewart supported,
Cooper opposed and Niles lodged. That
law was required because the Republ
can state treasurer and auditor general,
commissioners of the sinking fund, will
fully and flagrantly violated or failed to
obey the constitution and existing laws
They require that mo part Of the said
sinking fund shall be used or applied
otherwise than in the extinguishment of
the public debt" Art tx. sec, IL that
the moneys of the state, over and
above the necessary reserve, shall be used |
in the payment of the debt Of the state, |
either directly or through the sinking |
fund and the moneys of the sink |
ing funds shall never be invested
in or loaned upon the security of any.
thing except the bonds of the United
States" art. tx, Sec. 49, and that
"the moneys held as necessary reserve
shall be limited by law to the amount
required for current expenses Art. tx,
Sec, 1877 In the face Of all these pro
hibitory and mandatory laws the " pre-
sent system" Of which Livsey is the
exponent, the two or three millions in
the sinking fund are applied to the
relief of favored banks ; the four mil.
lion dollars in the state treasury are
neither used to pay the debt nor invested
in federal or state bonds, but, in defiance
Of law, are loaned to banks throughout
the state, without dollar of security TO
the state, except the treasurer'5 bond.
which is for only SjOO,OOO against four
millions in the banks which he favors.
The necessary reserve - for " current
expenses is fixed by law at $500, 600 but
under the Bailey.Livsey management it
has averaged 81, 500 600. When bill to
reform all this and simply to enforce
the constitution was introduced in the
Legislature Cooper fought it tooth
and nail and Niles lodged. Even since
1t became law the Republican com
missioners OF the sinking fund lagrantly
refuse to enforce it. Why ! They say it
will be too hard on the banks, some Of
which have for years, uudisturbed, had
the use of hundreds Of thousands Of the
state moneys. But, rs the Ne,C Era has
said
The plea that the banks who hold state
funds on deposit ought TO have time TO
prepare to meet the demands Of the Humcs
law is no justification Tor a majority of the
commissioners of the sinking fund voting
against the proposition to invest the funds
IN state or United States bonds at once
The banks have no claims upon these
FUNDS. They are merely used as dcposi
tories for the convenience of the state
treasurer, and they knew, or ought to have
known, when they accepted them, that
they were liable to call at any time.
What the audience, which Cooper and
Stewart and Niles will address at the
ourthouse tonight, ought to be told is,
why the Republican commissioners of
the sinking fund do not enforce the
Humes act, does Niles condemn them, if
elected to their place will he do differ
emily, and why did he dodge the vote on
II. This is n vital issue of the campaign
The Democratic platform and candidates
say:
The long continued abuses and spolia
tion OF the state treasury and defiance of
law py its management make essential a
radical reform no that large funds shall
not be accumulated by tho taxation of tho
people and distributed among favored
repositories of the state officials, but that
all surplus In excess OF the Immediate no
cessities OF tho state government shall be
invested in interest bearing state or fed
erai securities until it may be applied to