The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-11-25
AN EXPLANATION
From Auditor LafoIlette in Regard
TO Paying Expenses for
THE ExTRADITION REOUISITIONS
IIruOd by the GoysrAOT-Iis Says thaths
honiy Following out the Mandates OF
the Law In the Matter, and that There
are no Personal Differences Bstwesn
GovtrnOr Atkinson and Himself What.
sosver-Ths Mature of the Contingent
Fund and Its Uses.
spooIal nIspateh to the ln.ell!renoer.

Special Dispatch to tho Intelllgencer.
CHARLEsToN,w. Va, Nov. 24.--Au-
ditor Lafollette gave tonight the fol-
lowing statement explaining his POSI-
tion In the matter of the payment OF
the expenses for extraditon requisitlons
issued by the governor: ~ have not
seen the necessity of discussing routine
matters connected with the adminIstra-
tion in the press. and regret the pub
llcity given TO this particular matter.
However, l wish to have my position
clearly understood. The whole matter.
according to my way OF viewing II, re-
solves itself into the very simple prop
ositlon, viz: Shall / draw warrants
upon the state treasury as directed by
the legislature. and in conformity with
the law. or may disregard the legis-
lative mandate and pay out money as
may seem to meet the necessities OF
some department OF the government
without reference to the plain directions
Of the law? hold that II is my duty
when proper claims are presented
against the state to pay the same as
the law prescrlbes, and out OF the par
ticular fund which the legislature has
provided 10 meet such particular claim.
The attorney general has rendered
tho opinion that the expenses OF re-
quisItions can only be psil lawfully out
OF the governors contingent fund, as
VIII be seen from his letter. II. then,
these claims can only be paid properly
and lawfully out OF the civil contingent
fund, am to disregard the law and pay
out public money from fund which
the legislature has provided for other
purposes? think not, and do not re-
gard II as my business to consider
whether or not the legislature has ap-
propriated too little or too much money
to be set aside In certain funds. for GER
tain well defined and specific purposes.
The history OF this particular case is
simply this: II has been the practice
for come years 10 pay the costs OF re-
qulsitlons from the criminal charge
fund, and this was done until October
/. the beginning OF the new fiscal year.
III The meantime made a careful
study OF the law upon this subject, and
was convinced that payments OF this
character should be made from the civil
contingent fund, and that the old prac-
tlce should be abandoned.
on October submitted the legal
question to the attorney genral, after
wards saw the governor and advised
him that In future expenses OF requisl-
tions, when approved by him, would be
paid from the civil contingent fund.
However. II Is insisted that l continue
to pay these claims from the criminal
charge fund. and this have declined to
any longer do. am not responsible
for the actlAn OF the governor II he de-
cllnes to issue requisitlons. II II Is the
law that these charges should be paid
from the civil contingent fund. then ]
take It the acquisitions should be issued
and the charges paid as long as there
Is any surplus In the fund: but II II
should be exhausted the shortage. II
any, should be reported and allowed by
the next legislature. However, l think
the fund entirely sufficient
The appropriation for the contingent
fund for the fiscal year beginning Oc-
tober is $4,000 or this sum, about
5000 will be necessary for the payment
of labor about the capitol during tho
year, leaving a balance of $1,000 to he
expended as provided by the statute.
The average cost per annum for requl-
sitions is about $1,000. The capitol repair
fund will be sufficient to meet all con-
templated improvements about the cap
itol. The shortage in the criminal
charge fund reported 10 ond allowed by
the last Legislature. was Si25,o0O And
Included in this were the fees OF sher-
iffs FOR serving acquisitions as long as
four years prior to this allowance by the
legislature.
~ would Ike TO have Il understood
that this is not matter OF personal
difference OF any nature, between the
governor and myself. but purely and
simply a difference OF opinion on n
business matter and a legal question
pertaining solely to this Office which 1
claim the right TO determine"