The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1897-11-16
MR.. FoRGEY's COMMENT.


To the Editor OF the Intelligen@r.
SIR;-I am pleased to note that both
morning papers agree almos, verbatim
in reporting the hearing grlnted the
friends and opponents OF the refundlng
ordinance, before the okio Valley
Trades and Labor Assembly yesterday
afternoon. l am certain none of the
speakers can find fault with either,
There Is a slight discrepancy In the
reports OF Mr. Cruces remArks. The
reporters do not agree exactly. The
reason for this may be attributed to the
fact that Mr.. Cruise had not written
out any part of his remarks, whilst the
other speakers had.
Taking the report OF the Register 1
note, Mr.. Horkheimer asked for a few
minutes, during which he accused Mr..
Cruise of charging the present council
with extravaganza. which existed dur
ing fifteen years before" Nov you are
throwing mud" replied Mr., Cruise.
A few lines In advance of this Mr..
Cruise is reported as saying, THE re-
funding scheme involves an increase In
the bonded debt. Outstanding orders
have been spoken Of. Where is the re-
stralnlng ordinance? II was adopted
for the purpose OF preventing these
overcheoks, and the evil could not ex-
ist II its provisions were adhered to-"
would be loathe to accuse Mr.. Cruise
with knowingly saying that which he
knew to be false. / will be charitable
enough to say II is so long since he has
read the restraining ordinance that he
kap tku .NVNNftainnu mud II
seemed to me he should Hnye remem-
bered that this was stigmatlzing one OF
the city officials present and even II 1t
were true, 1t was mud throwing" more
distinctly such than the Implied accu-
sation OF Mr. 5orkheimer In referring
TO the action Of council Mt q time when
Mr. Cruise was one of It's members.
But Mr. Gruse's reference TO the re-
straIning ordinance was far reaching
and misleading. He uses the word
"over-checks, the only person that can
issue a check upon the clty's finances
being the city receiver, he violates his
obligation when he issues check for Il
greater amount than is to hts credit In
the fund upon which the check Is
drawn. or for any amount for which he
has no order OF the city clerk.
By the same ordinance II Is provided
that should the city clerk issue his or
der upon the receiver for any amount
In excess OF an appropriation he vio-
lates his obligation, in the case OF either
officer so offending the penalty is re-
mtoval from office, a fine of not less
than 500, nor more than 500, or imprls-
onment. Now Mr.. Cruise can have the
privilege OF examining into the affairs
OF the city clerk and the city receiver
and IL he. (Mr. Gruse), finds where
either OF the two officials has violated
the provisions Of the restraining ordl-
nance. the official Is ready and willing
10 accept the punishment.
As Mr.. Cruise remembers so well the
date OF the refunding ordinance, 1885, 1
regret he did not recall its provisions,
The date OF the ordinance Is April II,
1885, The bonds OF 1885 were issued for
a two-fold purpose: to take up out
standing city orders amounting to $780,
900, and to redeem unpaid bonds Of
1871. The ordinance provides FOR pay
ing outstanding orders amounting to
1924 900. but rs only $4,000 was issued
and that $4,000 was used In redeeming
bonds OF 1891, tho amount OF orders
must have been reduced In some other
manner.
a restraining ordinance might have
prevented the big over-drafts OF 1881,
but think It would have been neces-
sarP to have increased its efficiency and
applied II to council Us well MS the Of
flcers who dlsburse the funds in order
10 prevent an over-draft OF owes $780,
600.
trust to meet other assertions made
by Mr.. Cruise quite as bEoad and de-
void Of texture as that referred to.
Yours,
A. II. FoRdEY.
yVhnottpo, Not, 1E