The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1895-01-31
MAKE A HARD FIGHT.
treasurer Taylor's Bondsmen
Willing to Compromise
if Possible.
IF NOT THEY WILL FIGHT
Some Points on Which They
Claim They Can Avoid
Payment.

ST. PAUL, Jan. 31.--A Dispatch special
from Pierre, S. D., says: A great deal
of interest has been felt about the suit of
the state against the Taylor bondsmen
Both sides would be glad to compromise
on reasonable sum, but that seems i'm
possible. The bonds amount to $3.50, 900.
The present property OF the bondsmen
probably would not reach half that sum-
Most of this property is heavily encum-
bered, and if sold at forced sale at the
present time would bring only from
800, 1000 to $15O,OO0.. The bondsmen
have offered to turn this property to the
state, provided full release shall be
given, and while unquestionably the
state officials and the majority of the
legislature n
Would Be Glad to Accept ,
they are met with the. constitutional
provision which prohibits them from re-
leasing any liability to the state. At
the present time the :bondsmen are
searching for some means of avoiding
this constitutional requirement. If they
fail. as seems likely, they state posi-
lively that they will fight the collection
to the bitter end, for the suit against
them would not only absorb their prop
erty but the Judgment would stand all
their lives against whatever they might
acquire.
Rely on Three Points.
They will in this suit rely upon three
points. They state that under the law
the public examiner should have discov-
cred the shortage as early as Dec l.
that had he done so the $500, 900 in cash
which Taylor carried off would have
been saved, and that therefore the state
being guilty of gross negligence the liza
bility of the bondsmen is relieved. The
best lawyers here declare that this point
will not hold, that no matter what neg
lect can be shown on the part of the
state officials such negligence would
aperate to impeach these officials or
might justify civil action against them,
but in no case would the liability of the
bondsmen be released.
Confident of Their Position.
The bondsmen, however, are confident
of their position, and claim to have had
sound legal advice upon it. They say
that if they are pressed to it they will
make rigid examination of the COVER
nor, auditor and other state officials who
knew that Taylor was breaking the law.
For example, there is no authority under
the statute for him to float warrants.
The treasurer has no right to draw his
warrant except for funds in the treas
ury, or for taxes levied but not assessed.
When, therefore, the treasurer, instead
of paying out all the money, went East
and without the authority of the statute
foated funding warrants, he acted en-
tirely in violation of the law. The
bondsmeu hold that had he refused to
issue his warrants, but had paid out
merely such cash as might have been il
the treasury and had paid all of that, no
defalcation could have taken place for
there would be practically no funds to
steal. Again, when he foated the war
rants in the East he agreed to pay them
in October.
Governor Should Have Seen to 1t.
This, it is stated, was known to the
other state officials, and they endeav-
ored to make him keep his promise.
Had he done so, the money which he
stole would have been saved, but he did
not do SO and the bondsmen claim that
it was the duty of the governor to see
that he did, and as the governor failed
to exercise his constitutional duty of see
ing the laws enforced, although he knew
that they were being broken, the state
must stand the loss and the treasurer's
bOndsmen cannot be held
They also state that when the suit
comes to trial they will be able to show
that the treasurer had loaned consid-
cradle sum of money to number of in
fuential politicians and to some of the
state officials, and that the latter, being
under obligations to the treasurer, were
not in a position to force him into
rigid compliance with the statute.
Most Important Point.
1uC 1OuIUu pOluG
is this: Taylor occupied the office of
treasurer for four years, being once re-
elected. They state that certain part
of his defalcation took place during the
first term, while other parts took place
during the second term. They state that
it will be absolutely necessary to show
in detail when he misappropriated the
state money in order to fix the liability
of the bOndsmen. For if the greater
part Of the money was stolen during the
first term, the first bond is liable for
that. While if the money was stolen
during the second term the second bonds
men were liable. They claim that it
will be impossible for the state to show
what Taylor did with his money, as no
books of his are extant, and therefore
the state cannot fix the responsibility
upon either the first or second bond
except for the amount which was stolen
at the end, and that they believe cannon