The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1896-10-21
Stuckey to Norton.
Hon. James Norton, Comptroller Cen
eral. Columbia. S. g..

Hon. James Norton, Comptroller Gen
eral, Columbia, S. e.
Dear Sir: You recent communica-
ton without date, but published 10 The
State and News and Courier Of to-day,
received You say 10 referring to the
letter of Mr.. N. w. B7ooker that cit
demands the attention Of your Office,
aud full consideration by the officials of
Sumter county especially those Connect
ed with the annual settlements since
1SS9.9U." Your letter is addressed to
me. The public therefore might be
led to suppose that | was connected
with the gross discrepancy in the settle
ment for the fiscal year 1890.91 oe.
tween the auditor, the treasurer, the
comptroller general and Others, to
which Mr. Brooker refers aoJ to which
you also refer as the basis Of your letter,
ard showing that the treasurer received
credit far So. 5l430 of nulla bona ex
ecutions. whereas be should not have
received credit for more than 50, ,202,-
% after deduc,ing the amount actually
collected by the sheriff on executions
placed 10 his hands
You say again, it is Of paramount
Importance to the tax department. to
Sumter county aod to the general pab.
lie that the charges be sustained or dis
proved aud the responsibilities placed
where they beioog. You DO uot say
who has beer county auditor here since
1889.
Now, think it due to my Own char
acter aud reputation to say to you. to
my friends and to the public, that /
had nothing to do With the auditors
Office at the time to which Mr.. BROKER
refers in his letter, and to which you
refer 10 your letter. 1t appears to
have been the fiscal year 1890.91 when
Mr.. Peter Thomas was the auditor Of
Sumter county and Hon W. H Eller-
be was comptroller general Of the State.
I took charge of the auditors Office
here in January, 1893. and made up
that year the tax duplicate for 1928
made out the Is per cent penalty
book 1891 90 and made the settlement
that year for the taxes Of 1892. |
had nothing to do with the taxes Of
1882 80 or the taxes of 1890 91.
Pardon the suggestion, but I think
it would not be amiss to send your let
ter to those directly concerned 10 the
matter to which Mr.. Brooker refers.
The records of the auditors Office arc
IL ray charge and Of course I sould
gladly turn on all the light possible and
have no objection against having my
own record scrutinized. Soon after
coming into the Office, I discovered that
Mr.. Peter Thomas's duplicate was cot
properly added page by page, and dis.
covered that considerable per cent
Of the pages examined were net cor
rectly added. As the abstract and also
the annual settlement we're made from
the sum total of these pages, Wbo
knows how far they may have missed
the true amount with which the county
treasurer should have been charged
He may have been charged with too
much o, too little reported this to
the grand jury. The grand jury after
examining several pages, reported it to
the court. The court referred it to the
court. The court referred it to the
comptroller general It was afterwards
at succeeding term of the court re-
ported By the grand jury that the comp
troller general had taken 70 ac'ica CT
steps to overhaul The book, and this
part Of the preseotment was again re
ferred to the comptroller general. Tie
duplicate is still 10 uy Office and 90 one
has ever attempted to overhaul it.
Respectfully.
A 3 S7UcKEY,
Auditor Sumter County
Snmter 8 c.. Oct Is 1896.