The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-12-06
THE P0oR DEPARTMENT.

4
The Board OF Aldermen, whose commit
tee II is that has supervision over the
Poor Department, voted yesterday to "in'
vestigate all charges against the overseer
OF the Poor ana his department. "
The &C harges" which are to be investi-
gated were made by The NEWS In so far
as they were "charges" they are only of
| the importance OF the facts which them
selves were charges. Admitted by Mr..
CUMMINGS. great deal of money
from the poor fund has been devoted to
the keeping of himself and Others.
| There is no authority in law for such
keeping. The funds thus used were mis-
applied. There is no quest ion about that.
The only question is now far the Over
seer OF the Poor had warrant or authority
from whatever source for thus using the
funds. 1t is to the discovery OF such war
rant, IL any exists, that the investigation
will direct itself. 1t is to demonstrate such
right, II any right exists, that the Over
seer will aim 10 defend himself. The
facts OF the use OF the money, OF the,
strictly speaking, misuse OF the money.
are not i'm controversy. They are admitted
by the overseer himself
Such an investigation ~ is proposed
| will naturally involve the Committee on
| Poor Department, but whatever blame may
be proved to attach to them will not re-
lieve the Overseer OF the Poor. Indeed, it
was q member OF the committee that
asked for the investigation, and
introduced the resolution. The com
mittee is the controlling aud auditing
committee for the department, through
whom the Overseer, in his relations with
the city government and the people of
Providence, acts directly. This commit
tee is responsible to the city government
and ths public for the transactions
OF the Overseer. just as the directors
OF bank are responsible to the stock
holders for the honesty and efficiency OF
ths-hank,s- employees. -Mhsn- cashier
misuses funds the directors and the bank
examiner who have o. KID his ac-
counts over and over again are response
BILE TO stockholders and depositors, but
their responsibility in no way relieves
the cashier who has taken advantage OF
their good faith and confidence.
II it is true, however, that the Overseer
of the Poor has used the poor funds as he
ought not to have used them and did il
with knowledge, the public can hardly
hold the auditing comm mittee very sternly
a public official elected by the people has
right to claim at the hands of any au-
thority empowered to supervise this work
it is credit for full integrity in the dis.
charge OF his duties. No part OF our sys.
tenn of audit in city and State affairs
contemplates the auditing of the in
tegrity of public servants. And, indeed.
this is in no wise different from the con-
ditions that maintain in banks or private
corporations.
The facts that have constituted the
charges against the Overseer OF the Poor
are plain, undeniabie and are net denied.
We trust sincerely, for the sake of MIR.
| CUMMINGS himself, that the deductions
to be naturally made from those facts may
be shown to be wrong, or at any rate,
that their severity may be palliated by
some warrant not now clearly discernible,
but which Mr.. CUMMINGS may be able TO
show. Meanwhile. asa public employe,
the public has right to inquire into Mr..
CUMMINGS affairs, both private and pub
| lie, and to discuss them freely, just 40 a
business man has q right TO keep track OF
| the doipgs OF his trusted clerks.
MAINE.