The sun., 1901-10-17
STORY OF THAT So,

the whole story so that there can be 10
misconception Of it. 1t is true that ex-
State Treasurer Ball wrote letter cx-
planning, that is, giving his side Of the
controversy 1t is true that the money
is on deposit in the Farmers Bank iii
this city subject to the eN-State treaSur-
el'ss check. 1t is also true that he has
said through the press that he intends
to leave the money on deposit in the
bank until the next State Legislature rs
sembes and SAYS whether the money be-
longs to him. or is to be returned to the
State treasury. That we think includes
all that the ex-State treasurer has said
i'll his own defence. and all that has been
said for him. That is not the whole
story.
It is said that the legislative commit
tee appointed 10 settle with the State
treasurer allowed his claim for s2,150
That committee had no authority to ,lu
any such thing. But what had occurred
before that2 Every Evening acknowI
edges that the ex-State treasurer hal
made zip his accounts in such way as
te show that the total amount Of money
in the treasury and to be turned over Ia
his successor. was $3.50 less than the
actual amount that should have been IL
the treasury. Tpon these accounts tile
committee passed favorahly and the
St1t,k fntt Il, -,
transferred to Treasurer Burris. The
analysis OF this claim as made ~ Every
Evening III its defence of Mr.. Ball. Il
suggestive. The largest portion Of il il
Sl,50o clHimed for extra services by the
State treasurer. We think it would h.
interesting to know what those services
We're, seeing that DIR. Ball agreed to pen
form all the duties of State treasurer f6r
the salary fixed for that office But fn.
ther we find $4Oo charged FOR clerk Hire.
The law makes no provision for h State
treaSllrnr's clerk. and if ii became frct.s-
sary for the State treasurer to employ i
clerk III order to enable him to attend IN
his medical practice or other private
business, ii would seem tn he reasonable
to expect him to pay tllat clerk out IT
his private funds: again. the law pro,
vides for the election Of an Attorney
General who is supposed to be the Stata't
legal adviser. Such In officer had hecn
elected and was III thr discharge IL lte
duty Pr. Ball did NOT call % the 1T
torcy General. but employed private
counsel Why should that counsel IL
paid hy ill., state: By what right I'll
Inv " in ethics hal thr pX-Statr trcay.
urer Il withhold the amounts he hal
spent. ~ for debts contracted u thai
WAY nnt IL the States finds?
RGt III, legislative story, what y that'
Tho claim u ~ State Treasurer Bal
first appeared III tho lit II claims con
Sidercd III he joint committee o. legis
lativr expenditures and was diSallowol i
Al attempt was made II .et II ii Til,
list 81 tllp IIouse expenses. It was agait
rejected
Operations were then transferred ID tl
senate, The effort to gef lha claim rar
oynized failed until late iii I'll" session
W. believe tlat ii waS helm. presSe,
upon The attention q Senators by W. II
IIrald tile eX-State treasurcr's counSr
fur whom the $3.50, counsel fee waS in
tended, or paid, as the case may lne, Tn
matter WAS getting desperate, and tinal!.
while tile .Snti-.kddirkSites were holaint
lip hilI hi the Sennte il Wa intimntn'
that fhe Hin WenId pass il this claim 4
the eN-St!Ite treasurcr's was include,
in the list 0f Senatorial expenses. I
was then put upon tho list, and VII
finally rejected ~ The committee .
both houses III making the jant resolu
tion IN which the House and SrHRte cou
currrd ii approving expenditures ai
making allowances Rnt netwithStatdR
tlis d-allpwanca Of tho clnm lE III
Senate and nOnsc. Mir. Ball had tf
money. and u0w finds himself in i ver
peculiar position u Sag the least ah0u
IT, He apparently had $2,l50 "f IL
States money that h. could nut sft ~
Of Tie new State treasurer had talsc
and rerriptrd for I'LL the money ceitifr
to him rs being III Tie State reastirt. ar
he declined o accept ~. Balls check
npen The ground that he had already IN
cryea all the money that H. knnw /
he due from DR. Ball. Senator Ahhat it
cinrd to accept the ctpel:s because u
had no authority to receive, haltl, III Hi
lNrl.se State funds. Iii this dilemma an
III response tn popular camdr about
the rX-Statc treasurer deposited Ii
sum u $2.l50 ii the Farmers Bank i
this city % lis own credit, AMI then i
il letter to tile press advertised his il
tcnton q allow the money 70 renal
there until lille next session Of the STAT
Assembly, But why should thnt derosi
moi have been made in tht deposition y
the State. Il The credit pf the States
Nnw, summed mp, in brief what ar
the facts?
That eN-State Treasurer Balls ac
counts with the State ;trc not settled.
That ex-State Treasurer BaIs ac
counts with the State are not Scttlpll ~
cansr he held ont Of lis scttlemrnt witl
Treasurer Burris the sum of $215o "a
which he had no warrant Of law
That the major part Of the money s
held out of the settlement with Treasure