New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-30
mp EELSEY'S BALANCE SHEET.


Inv II. We are not aware that 1t was intended
he should. The question OF his personal deiec.a
ton was not seriously considered. either by the
Voorhees, Investigating Committee or by Inc
rr,bune Certainly it was not permitted to have
dominant weight. The public good was consld-
cred and that only With Mr. Keseys personal
comfort. or personal character we have no con-
corn save n benevolent desire to see them both
ALWAYS above par. What we have concern with
Is the manner in which, as citizen and as high
public officer, he has discharged his duties 10
the state.
We are quite willing in regard TO this matter
10 accept Mr.. Kcscys own statements as con-
elusive A month ago or thercabouts he testlnn
that he had for years been receiving large sums
of public money. turning them in To MS private
business accounts. using them for his own proht
and returning them to the State without interest
NJ such times az suited his convenience or as ac
corded with his personal Interpretation OF the
requirements Of the law. That was scandaous
Rut the State did not actually lose anything OK
cent thousands Of dollars Of interest, and was
not supposed to he in danger OF losing anything
Mr. Kelsey was Of course, an honest man, even
though his Interpretation Of the law was differ
ont from some other peoples. and he was, Of
course. entirely solvent and responsible for all
tho public money In his possession at any time.
Now. however, 1t appears, by his own showing
that he was not exactly as responsible as some
conhdng souls had fondly imagined. According
10 his tax assessment returns. he has-so far IN
his personal property Is concerned Tor years
been insolvcnt In 1890 his liabilities exceeded
his personal assets by nearly $1,000: In lSol by
almost as much: in 1892 by more than Slbovo;
in 1893 by more than $4,000 and in 1884 by
more than Sl4GU We take his word for IT,
He denies and rcscnis the impuiation that hts
fax returns were falsincd. We have no wish 70
make such an imputaiion. The question AT issue
/ is not one Of perjury. II is Il question of MT
Kclscy's responsibility and trvstworhncss as a
custodian of public funds. when. by his own
sworn statement. his debts exceed the value Of
his personal property and his bond is for only
$1,000.
Mr. Kelsey has taken the trouble 10 write us "A
l.ttcr I'm which he cnd.avors To make II appear
that his financial standing is better than has
been represented. We gladly published his LEI
Ter Yesterday. and now call renewed attention
70 IT, In 1t NJ. Kelsey says that in the last
twenty five years There has been scarcely year
when the Indebtedness Of my hs) personal
personal property" He then refers vaguely 10
corporations and associations In which he holds
stock. which pay the taxes levied against their
property and the stock OF which Is therefore
not taxable in the hands Of individual holders.
His obvious purpose is 10 convey the idea that
h. owns considerable amount Of personal prop
crtv which j. not taxable in his hands and
which. therefore. Is not mentioned In his assess
mcni schedule.
Very we'll let Us look at his returns for 1870
and see how they read: Il. Henry &. KELSEY,
do socmnly swear that the actual value
"of all the personal property to which held the
title or possession on the first Monday In May.
"Is9O and all that 10 which any other person or
persons then held the title or possession FOR
enc whether the same was held In trust or not;
and also all that which | then held as executor,
administrator guardian or trustee; and also
"all money and debts due and owing 10 me from
solvent debtors whether on contract. note.
..bond mortgage or book account. and public
STOCK. then being within or without this State,
us as follows There you have 1t. plain and
fat All his personal property. Not all assess
able personal property nor all taxable personal
property. nor yet all personal property not OK
cmpt from taxation, but ALL his personal prop
crty. without exemption, exception or rcscrva-
ton What Is the use in writing a letter 10 the
editor now about "asscssabe personal property.
and stock not taxable In the hands Of the hold
ers"? Men are hot fools. All means all
Moreover, as il. IL need be- to clinch the matter
vet more cmphaticay. Mr.. Kelsey further sworc
in this same return that the following is de-
.taIled list Of the securities and property owned
.and claimed by me to be exempt from taxation.
together with the dates at which said securities
cor other property were purchased. viz: None. y
| No personal property whatever claimed To be
.xcnpt from taxation. No stock not taxable in
thc hands OF the holders" NONE Then that
first schedule did comprise ALL his personal
| nroperty And so far MS his personal assets
wore concerned he was insolvcnt. He owed
q oiS more than the value of his entire per-
s,uol estate: and he owed the State Of New
Ierscv $4,000 He has made out a stronger case
,c,ins, himself than we have ever suggested.
I, is Of interest to observe also, that the schcd-
nil, presented by him included all which he Their
held os administrators guardian or trustee" II he
hold any rs such The line covering such items
roads. personal property held as trustee, ad-
,n,pistrator etc. None" lie was II trustee and
administrator for the State Of NcwJersey. and
y,as almost daily receiving large sums to be held
In trust for II. and almost constantly was In pos
session Of thousands OF dollars OF the States
money. and vet he said property held trustee.
vore" Was that memorable first Monday Of
Uov the one day OF all the year on which he
had turned over to the STATE every dollar mat
,v.s dine TO It? Impossible. For in that same
sworn statement he said he owed the State $23'-
600. For what did he owe the STATE such Il sum-
II not for money held by him as trustee! And
vet h. sworc he was not holding any such
What real estate Mr.. Kelsey owned, or now
owns. we do not know. lie says he PAID on such
property In 1884 taxes amounting 10 VIII -.
II is said he has some land III sussex county,