Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-30
JUGGLING THE PEOPLES MONEY
Why Did the Supervisors Bor-
row This Money?
The County at the Time Had Its
Golfers Full of Coin.
Another Matter Which It Would Be
Well for tho Grand Jury to
Look kInto-Banbury's Pc
culiar Statement.


has seen fit by resolution to request
the grand Jury to investigate certain
act or contract, into which they entered,
it certainly would look as though all Of
their actions of record were likewise
open to the same investigation.
There has for some time past been
more or less talk upon the streets as to
the county borrowing money when it
had cash balance on hand, which was
deposited in the very bank or banks
from which the money was borrowed.
This statement, upon it's face, appeared
to be very strange. A HERALD repre-
sentative was detailed to investigate it.
He found the following facts to be the
case:
Upon the minutes of the board of su-
pervisors, page 1856, minute book 10, of
the date of August 10, 1892, appears the
following order:
son motion of Supervisor Forester,
seconded and carried Resolved, that j.
Banbury, treasurer of Los Angeles
county, be and he is hereby authorized
and directed to borrow from the State
Loan and Trust company of Los Angeles
city the sum OF $4,000. payable within
80 days, at per cent interes and that
warrants be drawn for said sum of
$75 900 and $1125 interest, in accordance
with section 4005, political code of this
state"
1t would have been all right for the
county of Los Angeles to have borrowed
money, which was credited to the cur
rent expense fund, if the statement OF the
county auditor, made on the 9th day of
September, 1892, and covering the month
of August, 1892, had not shown bal
ance of cash on hand amounting to
$2l6, 6,64l Is. This was the total cash on
hand reported by the county auditor,
the chairman of the board of supervis-
ors and the district attorney.
OF course man having business ex-
perience of 80 years would naturally be
party to county loan for 5000
while the aforesaid county had to it's
credit something like $2l5,000. That is
proposition that would appeal to the
commercial sagacity OF any one, no mat
ter what his experience might have
been.
A reporter for the HERALD called upon
Jabez Banbury, county treasurer, few
days ago and asked him concerning this
loan. Mr.. Banbury was found in his
office in the court house, and in response
to inquiries made concerning the loan
he said:
II have no official knowledge of any
loan that this county has ever made. !
was notified along back in August that
there was to the county's credit $75, 700
at the State Loan and Trust COM
pany. 1 went and got the money.
81 have understood unofficially that
kb;o xuoo loon Tho uou oorno to
me was that it had been negotiated for
the county by Supervisor FORESTER.
Officially, all 1 did was to go and get
| the money. l received it in gold coin
and considered that to be sufficient"
| "Mr. Banbury, is it not fact that
| at the time this loan was made, the
county was supposed to have on hand q
cash deposit of over $200,000?"
II am not inquiring into what the
county might or might not have on
hand at any time. You have no right
to question me upon that point"
ssBut it has been alleged upon the
streets and elsewhere that the county
funds have been juggled With. For in
stance, it has been asserted that $50 900
was originally voted by the people with
which to furnish the court house. Yet
it ia matter of record that over $110,-
600 was epent for that purpose. All of
the warrants have been cashed by you.
Where did you get the money? You
claim to have stricly adhered to the lew.
Can you tell me how it was, unless by
juggling with the funds, that you were
enabled to cash these warrants for fur
nishing the court house when they ran
over 100000 above any fund that the
people had appropriated for that pur-
pose? ?"
Mr.. Banbury had no statement to
make: He simply declined to answer.
The reporter then went into the county
auditors Office. On allowance sheet
No. 38, for the August meeting of the
board of supervisors. he found for the
date of August 10, 1892, that warrant
No. 1922 had been issued for $75, 900,
and that also warrant No. 1928 had been
issued for $1125 interest money upon
the loan of $75 900 originally made.
In 80 far as the State Loan and Trust
company is concerned, the HERALD has
no desire to, and does not, cast any re-
Election upon that concern. The mana
gers of that company made loan, and
they made good one whsn they gave
it to this county. The following is a
copy of the warrant which the State
Loan and Trust company holds for the
$4,000. 1t is not payable until after
the election:
No. 1922. $4,000.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF Los ANGELES,
AUDITORS OFFICE, Los ANGELES Co,
August 20, 1892.