The sun., 1901-04-24


In the first place 1t attempted by a denial
from State Treasurer Burris, and Ex-
State Treasurer Ball, that there had !
been no suit entered in the case, to dis
miss it and thus avoid telling the truth
about it, 1t did this when the whole
trnth about the matter was easily within
its reach. Now when the facts Of the
case have been made public, it lodges the
question at issue upon the plea of "Dem- !
ocratic precedent" and shyly attempts to ,
make it appear that the claim was for |
money due the ex-State Treasurer; and I
also pleads its belief in the ex-State |
Treasurer's Willingness to do what is
right"
None of these things suffice. The
money ought not to have been taken
from the State Treasury without war
rant of law. 1t does not do to plead
democratic precedent" neither does it
do to plead ''money due" The history
of this case shows persistent effort to
having been withheld from the Treas
ury settlement-in spite of decided op-
position in both the House and the SEN
ate during the recent session of the leg
ishature. We suggest that the oppos-
ton to the payment, was at least sug-
gestive that the Democratic precedent
| upon which the claim was made was
wrong. There is no evidence that the
money was due. The salary for the
State Treasurer was fixed. There is no
law iustifying claims Of personal expen-
Ses. stenographer's salary and attorneys
fees. There was no appropriation of
State funds out of which these of the
State Treasurer could be paid. No such
appropriation was made by the recent
session of the legislature. How, then.
was the payment approved? As an ex-
pense Of the General Assembly. "con-
nected with the session of the Senate
paid out of the treasury pur-
suant to resolution in that behalf"
BY what process Of reasoning does the
News make an expenditure of s1,5O0 for
personal expenses, s40O for stenographer's
salary, and $3.50 for attorneys fees, by
the State Treasurer expenses connected
with the session of the Senate? BY
what process does it reason out that
these sums in excess of his salary, and
expended without warrant of law, are
due the ex-State Treasurer According
to our reasoning they could not he "due
him. until the expenditure was author
lied by law. 1t is clear that the sums
named as having been expended, as des
crihed, were not expended by any mem
her or officer of the Senate, and thai
they were in no way, lawfully, connected
with the session of the Senate. Their,
was no law for the payment of the claim
or it would not have been wedged int
the Senate claims to he allowed by tina
body MS an expense of its session.
The law in the matter is given in thu
constitution in this way:
Section 6, article VIII.
''No money shall be drawn from tn,
treasury but pursuant to an appropria
tion made by act of General Assembly
provided however, that the compensation
Of the members of the General Assembl.
and all expenses connected with the ses
sion thereof may be paid out Of the treas
D ury pursuant to a resolution in that be
half: regular account OF the receipt
e and expenditures of all public none
Q shall he published annually"
: In view OF this we ask the New
o il it considers the hiding Of an expens
! connected with the State Treasurer
5 office, in the list of claims allowed as e2
y penses connected with the Senate's So.
Il sion, after the House had refused to a
le low the claim, IN evidence of "willin.
z ness to do rght?"
y The Democratic precedent Of such a
Il lowancrs in the manner described
g. wrong. There can he no doubt abo,
er that. The proof Of it is in the quotatic
II we make from the constitution. III
er proof of the News position, and the on
g proof possible, will be in tie return
III the money. s215O, to the State Treasur
Our question Who and what is w
\. liam II. Heald, the political linguistic
has not been answered. We are waitil
patiently. Whore is John Goodwin?
L. Snil In l..,n .rivn snnnn infnrmnti |,