Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-27
A FAIR EXCHANGE NO ROBBERY,
But Were Not Treasurer Ban
bury's Charges Unfair?
Some Facts Which That Official
Should Try to Explain.
Matters in which the Public Has Vital
Interest-Will MIR. Banbury Auth
orize an Examination of
Wells, Fargo's Books?

When citizen is elected to public
Office he should certainly look upou the
conduct of that Office as public trust.
This is a trueism but it is not always
followed. 1t has not been followed in
Los Angeles county for the last four
years as is known by every intelligent
citizen and voter within the confines of
the county, and to many without.
In fact to people who reside in Los
Angeles it has become a notorious fact
that many men who have been elevated
to office in this county during the past
four years instead of regarding the Office
as public trust have proceeded from
the day they entered upon the discharge
of their duties until the day they ceased
to act as public servants to make every
dollar they could out of the office as a
private snap.
This is rather broad assertion to
make, but the HERALD has already
given ample evidence of the thrift of
some of the Republican officials who
are now enthroned in Office on the court
house hill. 1t has been conclusively
shown by this paper that the Republi-
can board of supervisors have expended
the peoples money with prodigal dis
regard for the ordinary principles OF
economy; that men now holding high
county Office have employed hundreds
of unnecessary deputies; that they have
let contracts involving thousands OF dol
lars to favorites at an exorbitant figure
without inviting competition; that the
public records have been stolen and de-
stroyed; that the public records have
been changed and mutilated at the in
stance OF member of the Union league;
that grand juries have not been regu-
larlv impaneled. And so the indictment
might be prolonged.
The HERALD this morning presents to
it's readers another evidence of Republi-
can thrift, which is really astonishing.
The concentrated essence of "galP' that
was required to cause such state of af-
fairs to exist is really astounding.
In 1888 Jabez Banbury, of Pasadena,
was elected treasurer of this county. He
was chosen to act for two years as the
custodian of the county funds, and in
January, 1889, he entered upon the dis
charge of the duties of his Office.
On February 4, 1889, the following
charge was made by Mr.. Bsnbury
against the county, and paid:
Mileage allowed by state te.......$l $lOO. 90
Paid state land office .................. 5000
Exchange on Sass, s,O12. %. .............. 1865
Carriage on money ney................... LOO
Total. .$se7.52
Mr.. Banbury about this date-Febru-
with the state treasurer for the state tax
of kh,o txy 10 oh rOod tho Nv
$1.75 per $1,000 exchange on the money
All we'll and good. That exchange he
obtained from the Farmers and Mer-
chants bank, the First National bank
and the Los Angeles National bank.
From the first named bank Mr.. Baubury
got receipt for $525 for exchange on
$500, 200, but from the other two banks
ne got no receipt for $241 80 paid for
exchange for $13S.000 At least he does
not exhibit the receipt with the charge
of $241. 80 he made against the county.
On February 25, 1889, Mr.. Banbury
made charge against the county OF
1912 paid TO Wells, Fargo & Go. for the
transportation of $2l2, $50 at $175 per
$1,000 from Los Angeles to Sacramento.
Mr.. Banbury appends no receipt of the
Express company for this 1872. Was it
paid7 Will Mr.. Banbury consent to an
examination of Wells, Fargo's books to
prove that it is?
On June II, 1889, Mr.. Banbury makes
a charge OF $16O 65 against the county
for the expressage of 100000 worth of
court house bonds from Los Angeles to
Sacramento. This is at the rate of 81 75
per $1,000. There is no receipt appended
to the claim to show that the money
was paid. The question is, did Mr..
Banbury ship those bonds by express
If he did, " ells-Fargo's books will show
it. Inquiry at the Office of Wells-Fargo
develops the fact that the bonds. if
shipped by express to Sacramento,
would have been cent up for 75 cents
per $1,000. Yet Mr.. Banbury charges
the county $1.75 per Thousand dollars.
July 5, 1889, Mr.. Banbury made a
charge against the county of $14O for the
expressage of $4,000 to Sacramento.
This is at the rate of 81 rs per 1000, but
there is no receipt appended to show
that the money was paid. Did Mr..
Banbury pay it? And if 80, will he per-
NIT an examination of Wells Fargo's
books to prove it?
But the "gally" charge was made on
February 5, 1890. Mr.. Banbury claimed
$1305 GA for the transmission of $522,-
256 SO to Sacramento in settlement with
the state treasurer. This is at the rate
of So 30 per $1,000. Wells-Fargo's rate
for shipment of this magnitude is
$1,75 for gold coin; 81 SO for silver coin
and $1.25 for currency. There is no
receipt attached to the claim to show
that Mr.. Banbury actually paid this
money for the shipment. Did he? Ii
he shipped it via Wells Forgo why did
he charge the county $2 80 per $1,000
when their rate is at the highest 81 75.
Will he permit an examination of Wells
Fargo's books to prove that he expended
this money?
On March l, 1890, queer charge
against the county was made bv Mr..
Banbury. He claimed and received $164.55
exchange on school money from Sacra-
ramento to San Francisco-$219,4 ,403 IL
which is at the rate Of 75 cents on the
$1,000. There was no exchange from
San Francisco to Los Angeles. Will Mr..
Banbury explain this?
July z, 1890, Mr.. Banbury got $124.35
exchange On $76,061 48 sent to Sacra-
mento, which is at the rate of $1.75 per
$1,000. No receipt is appended to the
claim, but this note does 60 with it:
"This money is to be paid as soon as received.
l cannot advance money for exchange"
This was in all probability directed to
the board of supervisors, who had been
somewhat slow in allowing Mr.. Ban
bury's charges for exchange