Potosi journal. (Potosi, Mo.) 1894-1929, 1901-05-22
Should Have Explained.

SOine people are to be pItIed.
others should he blamed for what
they do and say. We hardly know
how to class the editor of the Po-
tosi Journal after reading the fol
lowing editorial in his last week :
paper:
| "'Our Democratic friends have not
yet made clear what they did with the
state school funds: meanwhile the
voters are waiting for an explanation
that explains
''But whateyerllis ailing. whethe,
beni GIFTED ignorance or pure cs,ss-
edness, he certainly needs looking,
after for we cannot believe that any
respectable number of intelligent or
fair minded readers want TO have
such stuff dishcd ont in the columns
of Il paper for which they pay."
Instead of throwing out insinna-
tions as to the probable causes that
lead to the production of our para
graph, the editor of the Democrat
should have shed some light upon
it by telling what he knows about
what his party did with the pro-
ceeds OF the controvcrtcd state
school funds. We have seen sever
al explanations from Democratic
sources relating to the mattar,
chief among which is that the state
school and seminary moneys.
amounting to 81, 800, 900, and re-
presented before the Juggling Of
the funds by interest bearing state
and United States bonds, had been
''invcsted" in certificates of indebt-
edness, and that the resultant in
tcresl charge of $3.50, 900 annually
had been loaded upon the taxpay-
ers as ''sacred obligation" by the
Missouri Democracy.
To shorten the argument let us
conccde that the turning Of the
school funds into certificates Of in
debtedness was regular and in line
with the state constitution, a point
to be disputed, but what was done
with the actual funds resulting
from the controvcrsion, were they
used III the cancellation of state
bonds! Previous to the last cam
paign the Democrats maintained
that the certificates of Indebtedness
did not represent cancelled state
bonds in the same amount, and that
the party had, without including
this item, reduced the state indeht-
edness to somewhere in the neigh
borhood of s., 900, 900, and so set it
forth in the party's platform. AT
ter the Democrats were cornered
on this point during the campaign,
it was finally admitted by them
that the certificates of Indebtedness
would have to be incladed in the
unliquidated portion of the state
debt. If the certificates of indebt-
edness represent state bonds. al
right. Such shuttle, while not
entirely regular, at least does not
flavor Of 4 steal; but, on the ether
hand, then. what of all the reye-
nue. that has been collected these
many years on the state interest
and sinking fund account: Com
petcnt authority, basing its esti-
mate upon the assessed valuation
of property and the proportionate
percentage CT revenue collected
thereon, has stated that the money
collected on state interest account
should have liqnidated the entire
state debt years ago, without the
| addition Of the school funds. Now
if the school funds were honestly
handled, how about the state in
terest fund! Let the Democrat
editor enlighten us on either point
if he knows all about it.
Our Democratic friends are bolG
to assert their careful and econom
ical handling of the states money
but had they been handled in +:
similar manner by Republicans
the former would be denouncin!
such fnanciering as downright
stealing. Don't get off the tract
and tell us all about Republican
''iniquities" during the Fletche
administration, but give US an ex
planation of the Democratic meth
DDS of financiering that will clea
the party of the allegation that i
either looted the school funds O
, the state interest fund.