Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-10-08

- 49, ~ oNSb atiiet tltO lRbtlk " tto l1NOG
returned by Mckee as delinquent-all
of which the committee now assert were
fraudulently returned, sc. Placing this
total of 1858 names along with the total
of Sl,294.06 which the committee states
is the sum paid, one only naturally asks
how it is that Mckee received : ,553.s0l
A VERY BAD sNAG STRUCK.
According to the committees careful
certificate Mckee received $259,74 more
than he was entitled to. The commit
tees tabular report Of Thursday imme-
diately states so.
Now Postmaster Stewards sworn
testimony before the committee was !.
''On March 10th we had the receipts in
hand and made settlement Mckee
received $1,053.S0 or 81 ,553.S0 in all,
and Dougherty S2,062.20 or $3,062.a0
in ALL
In addition Deputy United States
Marshal q. NJ. D. Watsons direct testi-
mony, eorrobcrated by that of others is:
II compared each receipt with the list
for each name there was a receipt
and furthermore the general testimony
went to demonstrate that the totals of
these receipts after comparison were
added up, and that sum, TO use the court
attorneys careful, definite phraseology,
was paid for the receipts at their face
value, without premium or discount"
EXPLANATION NEEDED.
1t needs explanation how the Repub-
lican committee of three, after receiving
from its subcommittee, six from each
ward a closely scrutinized statement and
total, name and tax amount for name
and tax amount, checked and re-
checked, and then, after thorough audit
ing handed to the head committee of
three who according to the sworn state
ment Of each and all paid to Mckee
only the total Of the amounts following
each name.
Now if they did so, and they swore
they did so how could they have
paid to Mckee $i,553S0 when accord
ing to their testimony and the docu-
nents sworn to by them before the com
mittee and the public, the receipts would
call for only $l,294.06l
Either they paid Mckee S259.74 more
than it is proved by their own docu-
ments they did, and of course got about
200 more receipts for it, or else there is a
| discrepancy in their own testimony,
which is apparently equivalent to Il con-
tradiction on oath.
1t is tangle which, at the close of last
nights session, seemed inexplicable. 1t
| could not be explained by any of those
present at the moment when attention
was drawn to it.
ANOTHER TANGLE UNEXPLAINED.
Another point which is troubling
! citizens who have been watching the
course of this investigation is in regard
to the fact that he money was paid to
Mckee and Dougherty on March 10th
and that was the same day that Mckee
made certificate on oath before Squire
! Monaghan that he had not received the
taxes on the 1000 names.
Now both matters being transacted on
the same day 1t is apparent that if the
Republican cash bargain was made
subsequent to the oath taken by Mckee
the certificate In itself is technically
! true.
In answer to the question from a
reporter Of TIE GAZETTE, Squire Mon
Afghan stated Oh Friday that the Ger
titieate was sworn To, attested, and de-
1 llvered to Mckee iii the forenoon of
March 10Th. Unfortunately squire Mon
Afghan could not cali to mind the exact
hour. Now if the paymentof tile money
| 1.-THE s ,553,S0 sworn as the exact sum
| paid to Mckee, was made in the after
noon, and the general tendency Of the
testimony Indicates that Mchees oath,
as stated Is technically true
1t is understood that the reply on the
other side is "Qh we take notice only Of
the date Of filing and Of allowing the
error list. That is well enough from
| the Levy Courts point Of view Ms they
may choose to look on the incident, but
1 ii cannot upset tile technical truth 81
the oath Of Mckee thar at the time 81
/ making his declaration he lad not re-
ceiged tile taxes Of the share IF tile
1900 delinqaents IF his district. d
doubtedly the money was paid after
wards. The question, however, now II
not whether it was paid but whether
Mckee made an Untrue declaration.
should this certificate of Mekoa's be
able to stand ON its own bottom ii will
obviously fetch from present Or pro-.
speetive prosecution one If its strongest
holsters, The public criticism made Is
why We're not such questions asked by
the courts attorney when the testimony
was in hand that suggests these queries
in the public mindy
BLAcKeLoUD LOOMING UP.
Another story was on the streets last
week and it looms up blacket
cloud still than anything hitherto heard
II is 10 tile effect that on Monday
morning last previous 10 his g0ing on
the witness stand before the Levy Court
committee, ex-Collector Mckee stated
10 a certain citizen on Market street, that
4 the Republican managers knew well be
fore March 10th, that he was going tc
return the 1900 as delinquents.
lhe statement Of one Of them to
Mckee was "5'ou may as well let II,
have the receipts, you can make tho
money twice over
The citizen had previously remarked
TO him NOW il there not something
back Of all this Y
IN reply 10 the citizens suggestion
that that ought 10 BIO known publicly
Mckee's answer was that it would b,
better to keep quiet on that at presen
in view Of the whole matter going Il
court.
At $50 o'clock the committee ad
iourned 70 p. M Friday,
Levy Court COMMITTEES was called |,
order BY Chairman Hutchinson at 2 o'clocl
Friday afternoon.
II was understood that the special bust
ness of the meeting was TO officially ac
upon the answer prepared by Court AT
torney Bradford to the superior court
mandamus to satisfy the bond Of ex-Ta.
Collector George w. Mckee
u AZ 800 O'Clock, MIR. bradford had no