The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1891-09-23

toned between the outgoing ana incoming
officers.
Surely these prcccdcntS were based on cqui-
", and having been established, they should
not be ovcrrulcd. S":s TO be- retroactive.
But, whether or not il Is susceptible" {" proc!
that the Comptroller.Gcncral in 1871 ruled, Il"
was reported il is sabsolutely certain That the
fees We're divided Orapportioned between tne
old and the new Auditors, Just aS they should
have been between the old and the new
Treasurer or else the new Treasurer should
be paid his commissions ;tS per the rule Elu
down in the law. We believe the wlSeSt ana
ublcst lawyer in the Stale Will not deny THIS
proposition.
the old and The new Auditor for lS7G-717 were
divided, and that the first Treasurer, as spec
ial agent, WAS paid some 500 for about live or
SIX months service, and we have no account
of any discount ever having been made from
any years salary on this account.
The universal, or invar!able custom. has
been TO Sett L. with TrcaSurcrS after the col
lection year, aud in no other Instance has
any settlement occurred before that work
was finished, and To show that no legal settle
mcnt could he made before the completion OF
the collections, we quote, section Nv ol Ill.
Revised Statutes, which appears elsewhere.
Does the reader see any authority Tor max
ing Il settlement with the treasurer before nt
has completed his collections" How cOuld
any treasurer inform the County Auditor
of the amount of taxes, assessments aho
penalties before the expiration oil tue tin.
allowed by law for the collection OF taxes
No penalties could attach until after Il Eul
ure To collect.
II would seem, therefore. that the settle
mcnt with treasurer I'crrlnS bondSlnen ii
December 1870, when the office was still opel
and the collections going on, was without tht
authority of law and without the scnbianc'
of precedent. go
Treasurer Blake is not responsible for either
the carelcSSncSS or the mistake OF the Comp
trolIcr-Gcncral in making an unauthoriZct
settlement, nor should he suffer for any mis-
take of the ComptrollerGcneral.in IN paying tt
his predecessor the fees, TO which nc Is IL
equity and fairness, entitled TO part.
Treasurer Blake has legal right to III
commissions, under the following law: "Tht
following shall be the commissions oi tnt
County TreaSurerS upon all taxes collected II
their respective Counties: four per cent. upol
the first ten thousand dollars: three per cent
upon the next ten thousand dollars; Two pei
cent upon the next ten thousand dollars, ant
one per cent. upon all amounts coIlccteu ovel
thirty thousand dollars, provided the same
shall not exceed one thousand dollars, or bt
less than seven hundred dollars per annum.
except in the Counties of Chesterfield
Charleston, Horny, Union and PlckenS.
Unless the rulings of the Comprehension
eral are superior and higher than the writer
law and may override the custom of prece
dent, Treasurer Blake should receive the SSGO
commissions, to which he IS entitled when III
Is denied Il pro rata share OF the yearly com
missions with Treasurer Perrin.
The Attorney-General would bclittle Mr
BlakeS work, by saying "SeUcruL tnouSant
dollars" The exact collections were as FOL
lows: -,
Treasurer Perrin collected. ,9O3.53
Treasurer Blake collected.............2 2S9S+.l4
1t is not the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES compu
tation OF figures with which we arc contend
ing. 1t Is the premises or the setting oi M
sums to which we object.
In the beginning. he doesn't set them doWl
right, and hence his conclusions must or ne
ceSSity be wrong.
# figures are set in the wrong column
nei thcr logic nor rhetoric, nor scientific qulb
bling nor awkward dodSng, will remove
from view the plain honest fact that Blake
has done work for which he is denied an!
pay.
The plan of asking questions seems to be
favorlte one at headquarters, and we presume
the learned ComptroIler-General Is reall.
and earnestly desirous of being Informed
when he asks If Mr.. Blake IS not IN the sam
condition, as Mr.. Perrin?'
We hope to make 1t perfectly clear tina
they are not "in the same condition. ant
that the time is not limited TO the calende
year. but that all precedent is, that it is th
fiscal year. ~
On the sixteenth day Of September, 1870, ;
settlement was had with Treasurer Perrin
lie was then paid for the fiscal year: oo
liy the Stlte............ ........"...'..9 2 2uu.V
BY the County...-.......... 2.O.O
Total SlC0OG
That was all right and proper. We have N
criticism to make of that.
On the 3Oth day OF December. less than fou
months from the date of the settlement re
ferred To, he was paid:
liy the mVu
BY the COunty................. 2,O0
Total
SO, il will be seen that Treasurer Perrin. Ii
the space of sixteen months was paid S2OO
. nd IN m
that.
nuL we wish to convince even the Attorney
General that Treasurer Blake Is not In TIL
same condition as Treasurer Perrin, who en-
tered upon the duties of his Office early il
January, ls9l. He collected S2S.9sLll for tn
State, the County and the schools. Allc
eight mohths--in Scptcmber-he makes ful
and exact returns OF faithful services, ant
yet he is denied one cent Of pay.
The Comp,roller-Gencral excuses hitnscl
for this official wrong, and calls on the Attor
ncy-Gencral who in turn tries to induce tn
public to believe that Treasurer Blake Shoult
90 unpaid, and without bread, and all fol
sooth TO gain some cheap noiorlciy Il
the expense Of Il man who did faithful service
to the state.
To make more plain the fact that Treas
urer Perrin and Treasurer Blake are not II
the same condition. we repeat:
Surprising that tue previous settlement wa
made with Treasurer Perrin just one year be
fore the first settlement to which reference
trollcr-Gcmcral makes his annual Settlcmen
with Treasurer Blake next year 1T the uSua
time the pay and the term OF service for th
thrty-siX months will be divided as follows
Treasurer Perrin, lG months.........-..S2,00 ,00O
Treasurer Blake, 20 months. .............. l,OU0
Treasurer Perrin was paid according to law
out of the first money he received and now
il is proposed to pay Treasurer Blake out q
the last money he may receive, ii indeed, i
is proposed TO give him anything 1T all.
TI,,, Ill Il atNt.
upon his official duties until the summer O
1877 yet we presume he wus paid at the sue
cecding settlement without rebate for none,
received as special agent. and without refer
ence 10 the calender year.
Treasurer Blake entered upon his otllcia
duties in January, 1881, and at the end o
eight months he is knocked out OF any pay
aJ all. Tie business of that year Is wound mp
and he is left without a cent. until he earns
more.
1t is said that he will get a thousand dollar
next year II he collects the taxes for tia
year. Nobody has ever denied that. y:
soon as he earns another years salary, lie
ought 10 DC paid for II. and " ill be paid for IT,
unless his superior officers determine other
wise aS they have done this year.
But he is just aS much entitled 10 $500 now
or fair appOrtionment OF last years salary
us he will be next September to 81 900.
The learned Assistant Attorney-Gencra
gives it as his opinion that land i'm the posses
sion of an innocent purchaser may he sold tt
pay the taxes Oh The personal properly Of tho
vendor. While we are very much obliged tC
him for his opinion, and while he may be cor
rect, we beg leave To differ from him in thai
particular until he is able to quote the law or
the subject. \ judicial opinion, without
quoting the authorities is not superior to 8
newspaper article.
The State of South Carolina pays every of
ficer, monthly, except Auditors and Treasur
crS, and IN their cases the law directs thai
they bc paid out of the first money collected
Then why discriminate against Treasurer
Blake: Does the idea not suggest itself Il
the reader that there is no good reason iol
The exception in his case, except to uphold ;
previous erroneous ruling?