Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-11-12
S271.4O

The deductions ($27l40) are made
on account of names not returned on
the delinquent list and for other dis
crepancies discovered in the course of
the comparison.
The amount, $2,041,40 is what the
committee will report, barring any
clerical errors, to Levy Court, as the
sum due on list No. 3, by ex-Collector
Dougherty.
From this amount would be deducted
the percentage Is p. GU to which the
collector would be entitled and which
will reduce the sum TO $1,9iS.04.
The amount to be reported against
ex-Collector Mckee is, after deducting
percentage for commission, as already
reported, $l,29406.
But, cheek by jowl with this state
ment comes the sworn testimony of
Postmaster Stewart that he "paid ex-
Collector Dougherty $3,062.20 in all, !"
and to "eX-Collector Mckee 81 ,553.S0
in ALL"
The question is what did the collectors
do with all the excess-in Dougherty's
case $l,020.S0, and in McKee's $259.74-
total of $l,2a0.54.
The full amount that Messrs. Stewart,
Bach and Mahaffy paid to the ex-tax-
collectors, according to Republican tes-
timony on oath was "$4,6l6, for tax re-
ceipts for 1907
For that sum of $4,616 Messrs. Stewart,
Bach and Mahaify swore on the witness
stand, and were reinforced in that testi-
mony by Deputy United States Marshal
George Nj. ID. Watson and numerous
other Republicans, that 'the whole
transaction was for receipts at their face
value" and that ii was for public, that
is, county purposes, and not "money for
the collectors personally"
Yet in the face of this sworn testi-
mony by their own witnesses, the Re-
publican members of the investigating
committee propose not pushing for the
S4,616 of county money, but for 3d.
335.46 only.
1t is understood that their reason for
not pressing the suit for the larger
amount is that the famous list No. 3
calls only for the smaller amount. They
have come to that conclusion after sew
eral weeks prolix investigation work.
The claim, SO far, of course is that
the documentary evidence in their
hands restricted them to this position.
The documentary evidence made use
OF by the committee was list No. 3, the
delinquent books, and tho office record.
AS the public see the matter the result
from such documentary evidence is cor
rect as far as IL went. 1t showed the
total $3,335.46 against the ex-collectors.
but evidence exists to prove that the
sum OF $4,6l6 stands against the collec-
tors ana due to the county. The evil
dence is the sworn testimony of Messrs
Bach, Stewart, Aahatly, ct al., and also
the poll tax receipts that We're in the
hands of the Republican managers at
the inception OF the investigation, which
those managers admitted at the time to
have IN their possession; which Repub-
lican members Of the committee al-
mitted they knew existed at hand as evil
dence; and which the Republican menu
bers of the committee by official resolu-
ton declined to have produced after re-
peated urging for their exhibition and
perusal in committee by the Democratic
members us evidence.
The public comment is that it looks
as II the business is "loaded"
The next, and perhaps equally i'm
portant question to the committee, and
probably more important question in
connection with the Levy Court itself
and its administration Of public matters
on the high moral ground 5espoSen for
the new county administrators, is, what
was done with the excess Of money paid
by Messrs. Stewart & Co., Of s l,2S0.54.
Did it buy tax receipts, or was the
sum a solatium, bride, or rebate Of any
kind2
Now, all the Republican witnesses
testified exactly that all the money was
paid Tor bona tide tax receipts, name