The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1889-01-02

without. being properly made out and
sworn to; Treasurers have paid them
,, when not properly approved; Audit
ors have received and cancelled them
with all these imperfections, and pos
sibly rot even receipted.
The Treasurer is required to sign
the following oath TO every abstract
and additional abstract:
Il do hereby certify x that I
"have compared the Treasurer's Du-
"plicate with the County Auditors
duplicate page by page, that the
"two books are properly added and
"proved, and that the tax and assess
sment is entered upon both Books"
The Treasurer swore to the above
oath in every instance, but in very
few cases if any was the comparison
made. It is owing to this 'loose way
of business" between the Auditor and
Treasurer that called for tie appoint
ment of this investigating commits
sion. Auditor Scott would be behind
in making up his abstract: the Treas
urer would swear that there had
been done what had no existence, TO
help him out of his trouble. The
Treasurer would tell the Auditor that
be had certain amount Of money on
hand: tbs Auditor would then swear
he had counted it, and the money
was all there. These officers claim
that the signing of such afidavits
was more q matter Of form.
On Auditor Scott, however, must the
burden of blame rest. Had he per-
formed his duty promptly and prop
erly, and had he held the Treasurer
to strict accountability, no discord
could have arisen; but the Auditor
was negligent, and as far as s'addi-
tional taxes" were concerned, left it
apparently entirely to the honor of
the Treasurer to account for them.
Not one of Auditor SCOTS books
was ever completed. He says be
kept separate book for additionals,
and when he turned over the Office to
his successor, D. J. Bradham, be left
them in the Office. Capt. D. j. Brad
ham says that he never found any
such book, and swears that he ''neve,
"mutilated or destroyed any books
"since taking charge of the Office" ;"
The Treasurer should have been sup
piled with duplicate of these addi-
tional books, and they too should
have been fled in the Auditors Office.
The Treasurer never had any such
books.
We cannot concur with the
Grand Jury 1S87) that the ihcom-
plete duplicates should be completed.
As far as they go, and they will an
swer all practical purposes, they are
now books of record, but were any
additional work done on them, or
new books made, their value would
then cease, not being originals.
And right here let us place the blame,
the first cause, where it belongs.
The Auditors and Treasurer's Offices
are a part of the department Of State,
and under the immediate and direct
control OF the Comptroller General.
It was his business and duty either to
have required the work done proper
ly, or to have recommended and re-
quested the derelict officers immediate
removal. Had the Comptroller General
done his duty matters would have been
different. If Comptroller General
Stoney knew that the work was not
being done properly in the Auditors
Office, and permitted things to 60 on
thus, he was no more fit to I'll the Of
fee which he held, than some of our
County Commissioners were to dis
burse the finances of Clarendon
County.
There is no evidence that Auditor
Scott ever collected a cent Of taxes
that was not Immediately accounted
for. The Treasurer testified that Mr..
Scott sometimes assisted him in writ
ing receipts, but he invariably got the
money. All the charges against MIR.
Scott may be summed up in two
words, carelessness and negligence.
On August 20, 1888, near the close
of our regular work, We called upon
Treasurer Higgins, and requested to
be allowed to count the money on
hand in the Treasury. We found
$l55O.50 on hand. In his settle
ment with the Auditor, October 19,
1883, about two months later, he e1-
hibited $2,Sl2.52 az the amount Of
money on hand to the credit of the
County. The Treasurer has no right
or authority to lend out County funds.
The present Auditor, D. J. Brad
ham, is performing the duties of his
Office in systematic and business-ike
way.
GRAND JURIEs.
Was the Grand Jury of 1887 justified
in recommending the appointment Of
this investigating committee? We