The sun., 1901-04-25
THURSDAY. APRIL 25. 1901.
MO Room For DOUBT.


In another column Of this paper we
arint statement made by eX-State
Nrpasurer Ball, relative to the $2,l50 OF
ahe States funds which he holds, III ex-
ress Of his salary and on an unallowed
rlaim for services alleged to have been
lendpred in the office Of State Treasurer.
In this statement the ex-State treasnr-
tr gives his WHOLE case away. lie ad-
,nits that he has the money. and admits
a doubt about his right to have and keep
it, His statement is that the money IS
on deposit. in bank, to his credit. and
THAT he had decided to so let it remain
for the next two years, or until the next
session of the legislature, when he will
renew his claims and attempt to have
The money appropriated for its payment.
In this decision DIR. Ball admits that he
has possession of $2,150 of the States
money. and that he is holding it without
warrant Of law. He further admits that
he is in doubt about his right to this
llbItN ullN lHNt nv ii'tN hNAiNtt - i"'''f
of that doubt. not to use the money I'M
til he can have his title to it made good,
This position is untenable in both law
and ethics. In case Of this kind the
money clearly belongs in the State treas
nry. It was not legally withheld from
the States funds when the accounts of
- .,I
There has been no legal authority for
withholding this money created since the
settlements Of his accounts. This is not
only true. bnt its truth is admitted by
DIR. Ball in the statement OF his decision
as to what he will do about it. 1t is
clear that Dir. Ball has come to doubt
aud that 50 far, Mt least, admits that il
belongs to the State-that his claim to il
must bc made good at the next session
of the legislature.
We submit that 4 claim against the
State treasury that must be made good
1T some future time, is not good claim
HUN. 'luTlN, HIllI lHlS tliill IL illilut
good there can be no lawful possession
Of the money Mt issue, in the claim, by
the claimant. Lawfuny the money
should be in the custody of the State
treasurer. 10 comply with the law III
the case DIR. Ball must return the 81. $50
held by him in excess of his salary to the
Az Al ~ 4.
question, DIR. Balls admitted doubt OF
his right to hold and use this MONEY is
conclusive against him. There is nc
room for doubt on the ethical side Of The
argument The ethical base Of his claim
cannot exceed, and must reasonably be
supposed to be even more limited than
,iSion Of the ease is one Of law, there
can be no claim n ethics transcendin.
the law. aud admitting the lack Of lega
right 10 this money, as DIR. Ball does
in his expressed intention to have thai
defect made good at the next session q
the legislature, he must also admit tha
he has no moral right to it. That il
just the position in which he puts him
stlf.
There is no escaping this conclusion
by his own admission DR. Ball has mad
II impossible for him honestly to retaii
tile money in question. Its payment wa
not authorized by law. In the absenc
" law authorizing its payment il is with
held from the State treasury in viola
ton q law. and makes a shortage il
his accounts ~ State treasurer. I'll
"nls way e avoid responsibility for thi
violation Of law. this outrage Of mora
sentiment. and for this shortage in iii
Statr funds, is to make immediate rest
tntion Of the money