Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-12-14
MIR. BuWMAN's EXPLANATION

What the ex Circuit Clerk Has to Say
That of the Finance Committee.
In order to learn ex- Circuit Clerk Bow.
mans explanation of the differences in
his accounts and those of the finance
committee of the board of supervisors, an
ARGUS reporter interviewed that gentle>
man this morning.
Il have. as my report shows" said Mr..
Bowman, a certain amount Of funds, that
belong to the county amounting to
$3.50, which am ready and willing to
pay over. The finance committee claim
that errors were made which would swell
the amount to about $S7; that may or
may not be right. cannot say until /
look at the books. If it is justly due, the
county shall have the money very
promptly. In regard to $50 funds for
the sheriff's Office. l am not prepared 10
say now whether I have paid that over
to the sheriff or not. have sent to Chi
cago for the original voucher, and when
that is received / can ascertain. That
occurred during the September term of
court, 81, and was paid to Mr.. Gamble
while was busy in court. The money
was duly turned over to me, but whether
l paid it to the sheriff l can't say until
receive the original voucher. The only
sheriff fees that came into my possession
in any way were in some such case
as that described or when some
eastern firm sent draft for
the entire costs. In such CAGES
l never would receive or receipt for
sheriff's costs, but turned over the amount
due that officer to him Immediately, taking
his separate receipt to the parties who
had paid such fees, and returning to them
his receipt accompanied by my own. I
never gave receipt for any sheriffs'
costs; what kind OF receipt Mr.. Gam
BILE gave in the case have alluded to
l don't know. Ipursued this course be-
cause the board of supervisors at one
time during Mr.. Harson's term as cir-
cult clerk passed resolution forbiddlng
the circuit clerk collecting sheriff's fees
of any kind"
in regard to fees claimed by the A.
nance committee as due the coroner or
the master in chancery such bills,as make
up part of the s4Sa charged against me
want to say the finance committee has
nothing TO do in any way or shape
That is a transaction between those men
TO whom these bills are due and myself.
hold the money for them and not The
county. The same is true Of the witnes.
fees which constitute the bulk of the
amount alleged to be due from me. A
large portion Of those witness fees are
covered by receipts given by non resi-
dent witnesses or parties who could mol
come and receipt for them, and which
hold for my own protection, and witness
fees in my hands will be paid to whom the,
are rightly due when proper claims are
presented"
II may add that if there are any wit
ness fees remaining in my hands, it is thu
fault OF the witness, for it was always N,
practice to send postal card to witnesse
the moment fees came to me belonging Il
such persons.
Il don't think the finance committe
acted fairly with me, as MIR. Gordon, tb
chairman promised to furnish me with
statement of any errors or items misun
derstood that might be found in my re
port, and he did not do so, nor did he ca
Il on me for any information whsteve
a Had he done as he agreed to. woul
nation or explanation that he might hay
desired"
: Il am told that a point was raised
: the board as to the fact that had n
made report to the board of turning n
l. Office over to my successor. Such 70
u mallties are not necessary. The la
Il makes NO provision for any action of III
c kind on the part of any officer. No SUI
II practice has been followed in the pa
II either as regards state or county of1c
q in Illinois. There is no law for It,
Il When l took possession of the off
fe four years ago, it had never previou:
l. been profitable to the county. l hs
u diligently collected the revenues, and {
ter paying all salaries and expenses, ha
been able to pay over to the people of
be county net 81 900 annually"