The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1897-10-01
NOT OVER WITH YET.

THE REPUBLICAN is greatly sur
prise6 at the turn ot affairs at Pierre.
Believing in the statements made by
Mr.. Mayhew. who had q full knowledge
of the situation, that the charges OF
Examiner Taylor could not be sus-
tained and that the scandal would be
avoided. it seems from the adnis-
sions from Pierre that either Mayhewg
Anderson, Nipple or Stewart have gone
wrong. The Argus-Leader. which evi-
dently has full knowledge OF the mat
ter. makes the following severe COM
nent. which may be harsh or NOT as
the case develops:
Public Examiner Taylor proves him
self TO be correct in his charge that eX-
Auditor Ripple and Auditor May hew
are short in their accounts. Notwish-
standing the deniais OF those gentle
men. Notwithstanding the denial OF the
popullss attorney general. the facts are
now as plain as day and the two gentle
men accused have sc dmitteo their snort
age.
This is bad blow 10 the state. The
Argus-Leader had supposed ,ha, with
the passing OF the Taglor and hellam
scandals the state would De rid for
many years Of Official crooked ness. 1t
seems that this confidence was mis-
placed.
While it is too estly yet tc determine
whether Messrs. Nipple and Mayhew
were consciously guilty of malfeasance,
there is nc question that there is guilt
in the auditors Office. In Mr.. May hew s
case the shortage may De possibly
charged TO an error in book keeping.
A shortage OF S45 might be due 10 care
lessuess in keeping the accounts and
the Argus-Leader is ready to believe
that Mr.. Maybe Is personally innocent.
But shortage of 1920 can not be
have been deliberate intent 10 Gefraud.
Mr.. Hipple charges the fault on his
deputy. the same deputy by the way
who served under both auditors. The
Argus-Leader has not heard Mr..
SchwsrtZ's statement. AS matter:
stand be is the accused. Possibly wher
he is heard from he will put differen'
face on the matter.
But whether Mr. Nipple or Mr.
Schwartz is the guilty one. there is Nc
question that the state has been de
frauded. There is no question that the
practice OF the auditors Office was
against the gCOG name ana Tue IQan
cixl safety OF the state. instead OF being
what the constitution intended. its bul
wark- Mere restitution does not Sc
the matter right. Merely contessine
when the public examiner has made
eoncealmept no longer possible is no
an exhibition OF innocence
The auditors Office is established fol
the sole purpose OF preventing irregu
larities in accounts. The auditor is tht
watch dog Of the treasury. Errors arr
crimes in fhis department. But II
shortage OF 2,000 can be charged Il
errors. No public officer can overdrsv
his account 10 this amount withou
knowing 1t. Someone in the auditor
Office must have received this $1,000
knowing that il was money belonging
to the state. In other words. soneon,
must have deliber Ately faisihed the &C
counts and pocketed the states money
Who il WAS has not YET Been settled
but it was someone.
The duty OF the attorney general i
clear. He should promptly Investigate
and find the guilty party, whether it o.
Nipple or Mayhew or Schwartz or An
derson or all OF them. the whole powe
of the law should be exerted prompt,
TO punish this crime. There should o
such cleaning out OF THE state ofic
that no one will dare again tampe
with the money OF the state