Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-28
THE COUNTY TREASURES AND THE Law.

County Treasurer Jabez Banbury
(don't forget the Jabez) was interviewed
by HERALD reporter yesterday. He
declined to say whether or no he had
paid the sums for expressage and ex-
change with which he has charged the
county. He confined himself to the
statement that he had asked rate
from Wells, Fargo & Co. To the in
quiry as to whether. after ascertaining
rate, he had actually shipped these
sums on which he charged expressage
he declined to answer. He said, in sub
stance, that it was none of the report
er's business. He was next asked if he
kept a cash book as directed by the
statute. He replied that he did. The
reporter then asked to be allowed to
look it over. The county treasurer then
superciliously inquired, "What right
have you to see it?" and declined to
produce this public record.
The reporter, on receiving this rebuff,
reported progress at the HERALD Office.
He was instructed to tell Mr.. Banbury
that he claimed the right to see the cash
book OF the county treasurer as citi-
zen, and again demanded its production
for the purposes of inspection. This
time he was accompanied by witness.
On his second demand Mr.. Banbury
produced what he called his cash book,
and it was found to be kept in man
ner that in no sense complied with the
law. The statutes under which Mr..
Banbury should conduct his office pro-
vide that there shall be daily entries of
cash receipts, and other details OF the
county treasurer's Office. Instead of that
the county treasurer has been in the habit
of Jumping his debit and credit entries
at the end of the month. When asked
by the reporter why he did not comply
with the law by making detailed and
daily entries, Jabez replied that to do go
would require the services of couple OF
clerks, and that the board of supervisors
had made no provision for such clerical
assistance. He added that he had done
as his predecessors had done, seeming to
consider that this statement clinched
the matter. This is precisely as though
the tax collector should levant with
big COB of the county moneys; and,
when heard from in Canada or some
other congenial spot, should reply that
be had only done as Ell Hammond,
former Republican tax collector who
vamosed with $4,000 of the peoples
money, had done.
And this is the kind of service the
county OF Los Angeles gets from her ring
officials! They are law unto them
selves. They seem to think that they
are above public opinion and can defy
censure. If Mr.. Banbury has been
pocketing the large sums which he has
charged for expressage and exchange in
the sending of money to Sacramento he
is morally guilty of embezzlement.
whether technically 30 or no. To put
money which has not been expended
into his own pocket, to the detriment
of his constituents of Los Angeles county,
is the gravest eort OF an ofense. If it is
not punishable according to law it ought
to be made SO. 1t is moral delin-
auency which calls for the rebuke of the
taxpayer at the polls, to say the least.
The failure to keep his books in the
manner prescribed by the law is an
other offence of magnitude. For acts not
more fragrant than these. the courts
of San Diego county have re-
moved high county officials.
These incriminated persons urged,
as does Mr.. Banbury, that they
had only done as their predecessors did.
Meanwhile, to certain extent, the voter
has his remedy in his own hands. He
ought to enforce a sense of responsible
ity in officials by beating the recreant
ones.