San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1892-01-15
sTANFIELD SUSTAINED
In His Charges Against the Com.
mtesiOners' Court

In His Charges Against the Com
mtssioners' Court
The committee appointed at mass
meeting held in San Antonio on December
s. to Investigate the charges made bv
County Superintendent Stanfeld against
the commissioners court, for misapplying
part of the school funds belonging to the
county, have submitted the following
report to the school trustees OF Bexar
county:
First We find, after a careful inspec-
tion of the county treasurer's books, that
since the year 1882 the commissioners,
court have established special school
fund without authority of law, and up to
the present time have held funds which
should have been placed In the available
school fund for per capita distribution to
all the districts In the county, to be doled
out at their pleasure to certain schools
for building. repairing, furnishing and
for text books, thereby defrauding the
rest of the scholastic population OF their
just shareof said funds.
Second-We find that the total so used
since 1882 amounts to about 2,s43.
Third-The money thus held by the
commissioners court consisted OF rents OF
school lands and interest on proceeds OF
school lands sold which the law distinctly
provides shall be made part of the availa-
DIG SCuUOl luuu duO Sudii UO
annually In the same manner as the state
fund. :,
The first payment to available school
fund from this special fund was made in
1886 and at intervals thereafter the COM
missoners' court made payments to said
fund as it suited their pleasure.
Fourth-We find that it has been the
habit of the county judge 70 hold notes
and lease contracts belonging TO the per-
manent school fund and TO charge per
cent commission for collecting interest
and income on them when the law fixes
his salary for attending to all school
business. The amount thus illegally
paid is 1918.
Fifth In 1890 the commissioners court
paid from this so-called special fund for
visiting school lands $40. for assessing
local taxes Sl1s.15, whereas the assessor
was entitled to but Sl9.1S which should
have been collected for the districts levy
ing such taxes.
Sixth-In January, 1882, the commits
sionerS' conrt paid to G. w. Caldwell the
sum of $3.50 from the permanent fund as
commission for selling certain Scool lands
and in 1884 the county treasurer was paid
SIT so out of same fund.
Seventh-County judges while acting as
ex-Officio county supPrintendents are al
lowed by law, as salary, a certain liked
sum for schoOlfunds disbursed, but 1t has
been their habit 20 deduct this commits
sion on total receipts and again to deduct
on balance carried over to the ensuing
year. We find that in this manner the
school fund has lost s36S.69 between 1884
aud the time that the Office of county
, superintendent was put in operation. OF
this overdrawn commission S295.69 was
paid 10 one county judge and s73 TO his
predecessor.
Eixhth-In 1891 we find but one Item
rn this snooiol fund
by the commissioners court, but we find
that $50 has been thus paid from fundS
already belonging to Dist. 26. We are in
formed that since this agitation began the
commissioners court has replaced the
sl57.13 ont of the general revenue of the
county, and that an x-county judge has
refunded s251.69 of the amount overdrawn
by him, and that the &C lnty treasurer has
refunded over 500 which he had received
above what the law allowed him.
In conclusion we would say that we con-
slider the county treasurer the proper Gus
todian of all notes, bonds, or other funds
belonging to the public schools Of the
county, as he is required by law to give
bond In double the estimated amount of
funds coming into his possession, but
funds held by the county Judge are I'M
protected by any oond. We feel that with
the amount of county school business in
this county 1t will take all the time and
attention of one man land he well quail
fed to do it justice. and that the county
Judge cannot under any circumstances
give it the attention it requires.
We have carefully read the report OF
Superintendent Stanfield to the commits
sioners' court, and can say of 1t that it vas
in every way moderate and plain state
ment OF abuses that had crept into the
management OF the public free schools OF
the county, and that the facts therein
stated were the very best reason for con-
tinuing the Office of county superinten-
dent; and we must say the men holding
the responsible position Of county com
missioners have shown very little consid-
Grafton for the educational interests oil
their constituents by removing a very
capable man and abolishing an Office be
cause he, in the honest discharge of hi!
duty, was Obliged to take exception u
some of their acts and the acts of thei
predecessors. We would also say thai
we consider the salary now allowed b,
law as entirely too low, considering tn,
amount of work involved, the expens
connected with the proper discharge o
the duties of the Office and the abilitie
required in the superintendent.
A. w. PERKIN,
L. p. DAsHIELL,