The record-union., 1893-03-04
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
[coNTISUED FROM FIFTH PAGE

i
refused personally to give the committee
any information of the conduct OF his Of
ice, or where this money was kept, if it
was kept. Hence the committee is COM
pelled to draw such conclusions as his re-
tentlon of this money for an unreason-
able length of time and his failure to ac-
count for its custody justify.
The claim was made by his counsel
that he was in doubt as to whether the
money should be paid to the general
fund or the Harbor Commissioners
funds. But both funds are kept in the
state Treasury, and the Controller deter
mines to what fund money should be
paid, and if he errs in Judgment, his
error may be corrected. Mr.. Hart made
no attempt to pay this money into the
state Treasury until an investigation into
his conduct had commenced.
~On May 81, 1892, the Controller ad-
dressed him letter asking what had
been done in relation to these and other
suits, and containing this demand: L
was advised that acting under this au-
thority you have compromised some of
these suits. and are inreceipt of moneys
which should be paid into the State
treasury, as the present fiscal year closes
on June 10th. prox., and Immediately
thereafter make up my biennial report
l respectfully request that you make
your settlement with the State as soon as
possible, in order that these items may
appear In their proper place in my forth
coming report In an answer dated June
70, 1872, the Attorney General stated that
the matter had been settled as to one of
the defendants, partially settled as to an
other, and nothing accomplished as to an
other He also stated that it was claimed
that the money had been paid to w. A .
January and stolen by him, that it was
also claimed that a portion of the money
had been paid over to the successors of
nj hot |
made of the Harbor Commissioners
books and the books of the express COM
pany to determine whether these conten-
uons were true, and that If true the de-
fendants' claim that there is nothing due
from them. He closed by stating that he
Claimed that the money, lohen paid,
Should go into the general fund, but that
the attorney for the Harbor Commission
ers claimed that it should go into the
Harbor Commissioners fund, and we
have agreed that as soon as the settlement
Is made to submit this question to the
court, and We hope it can be done before
long,
''At this time, however, he had, or
should have had, in his possession the
sum OF Sl4,3Z7 50, as follows: In People
VS.. Phillips S7,725 81, collected July %,
1881, and People VS.. Blanding S6,G0l 81,
collected at least as early as August l,
1891. But he gave the Controller no in
other than as stated, and made no effort to
comply with the demand of the Control
Ter to pay over what he had collected.
"It will be seen that he had retained for
nearly year the sum of 7,725 81 in the
suit of People VS.. Phillips, which had
been fully settled, and the sum of S6, ,60I 56
IN the case of People VS.. Blanding which
had also been fully settled in so far as it
relates to theEdefendants' paying THAI
sum. The Controller made another de-
mand February 6, lS93 and testified that
he did not know OF the specific amounts
collected by the Attorney-General until
he was served with the papers in the suit
brought by Hart on February Z. 1898.
ut also appears that there are no en-
tries III any book, paper or document of
the Attorney-Generafs Office showing
the collection of this money or the amount
collected. If he had died his successor
would have had no way of knowing so
far as any record of information in the
office is concerned, where this money
was, or that any money had ever been
collected by him for the use of the State.
AS will be seen by the dates at which the
certified checks and certificates of deposit
were paid that they were not cashed at
the time received. What necessity there
was for cashing a certificate of deposit or
certified check and placing it in gold or
currency TO be carried in the Attorney
Generals pockets or placed in his safe
does not appear. If there was doubt as
TO where the money should go, why did
he cash the certificate? Why not pre-
serve the certificates to be delivered to
The officer entitled to receive them?
Where the money has been during all
the time it should have been in the
state Treasury, your committee have
been unable to learn. 1t can
scarcely be imagined that any
sane man would carry around with
him for over eighteen months sum ex-
ceeding $4,000, or would place the same
in an Office safe occupied by others. If
the law permits such course, it is a great
defect, and any officer who attempts to
shield himself by such a flimsy sug-
gestion offers the most convincing proof
OF his incapacity for public trust. The
fact that he retained this money on
his person or In some private safe is
not testified to by any witness, and the
only evidence that it was retained in his
safe was by the transcript of court pro-
ceedings filed in evidence before this
committee. He does not attempt to show
where 1t was, and while the statement
was made that at the proper time it would
be shown that the money was in his safe
''the proper time'' never arrived. and not
particle OF evidence was produced to
this effect.
1T certainly is strange spectacle for
man filling public office to refuse to in
form proper authority where public
money has been kept. No officer who
has charge of public funds should hesitate
TO give a statement as to the amounts col
Iected, and in whose custody they have
been.
''In relation to the conduct of his office
at the Capitol, we are forced by the evil
dence (see testimony of State officials and
document signed by them in evidence
before this committee) that the same is
marked by degree of carelessness in
eXcusable; that the Office has been closed
a great portion of the time, and that great
Inconvenience to all of our State officials
has resulted therefrom; that no conf
dence was had in the opinions obtained
by the State officers from the person in
charge of said Office as First Deputy
Attorney General; that we are fully war
ranted by the evidence of others, and by
his manner and appearance upon the
witness-stand before this committee in
coming TO the conclusion that said deputy
Is not fit or competent person to act as
counsel to the State officers In the dis |
charge of their official duties; that the in
terests of the great State OF California de-
mand higher order of ability than is
possessed by him; that expense to the
State has resulted by his retention
in said office; that all of these
matters were brought to the atten-
ton and notice of Acknowledgement
Hart, and that he refused and
still refuses to make any change in said
office; that our State officers are com
PEELED in order to protect the interests of
the State and themselves in the discharge
OF their official duties to employ private
counsel, at large expense to themselves
and the State, and for which state of
affairs wo think the Attorney-G General
entirely responsible.
1--WE have endeavored to conduct this
investigation in fair and impartial man
ner. giving such weight and credence to
the testimony adduced as in our opinion