The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-12-09
COMMENTS

Trehsurers Accounts. The trsasurer's
each book, 90 September s 1902 showed a
balance IN the treasury Exhibit "F'D Of
Sl3, 5AT8S OF this amount 81, s5S IS was to
the credit OF the local and srnte available
funds. ana sll 601.90 to the credit OF the
building fund The school funds were
found deposited TO the credit q the treas
utera personal account. and not kept sep.
arata and distinct. therefore, the amount
could not be verified
The treasurer permitted the balancing Of
his deposit hooks, by the banks, which
showed that he had more cnsh deposited
10 his credit than the amount Of the school
funds He, however, refused 10 permit the
aseertaining OF the amount Of checks out.
standing.
In addition 10 the above amount OF siS,.
54I IS, the treasurer had warrant No. 1iS,
$3.50, covering the state npportionmeut
10 the school district Of the city OF Hous-
ton Tor the year ending August 81, 1903.
pnring the period under review the treas.
urer has disbursed without warrants S23S,
I6seS. or this amount Sl07 1922 was on
account u pay rolls approved by the finance
committee 81 the, board; the remainder,
S+l'olOUb. covered sundry disbursements,
the details OF which ara shown In exhibit
The actual dstes OF payments made by
| the treasurer arc not shown In his cash
/ book. those OF the warrants or pay roll,
| covering the same being used Instead
| warrants apparently fraudulent:
Exhibit &C, schedules No. ] and No. .
show the details OF all warrants issued
which appear to be fraudulent. together
| win such Information with respect 70 cacl
( Item as could be obtained
The amount OF apparently fraudulent
| warrants issued is $2l.6l2.6l. Of whict
Sl5,02566 have been paid and S65s5,05 ar,
outstanding.
| II has been the custom Of the city 10 IN,
( past % receive school warrants In paymen
/ Vf taxes, which were rcmitted by the citj
treasurer to the treasurer Of the schoo
board Ia lieu OF cash. All warrants ap
/ parenuy fraudulent that have been paid
/ with the exception OF warrant No. ga
/ dated September ~, 1901, Ia favor OF e
( II. Meyers & Co, for sos. n, were include,
In those handled In the above manner
/ Ia eNamihing the papers OF the former
! secretary 81 the present board, ten war
( rants were found signed IN hlanS, nine o
| which purport 20 hear the signature q
Andrew Dow, as president ana one o.
! James Charlton, These signatures hRy,
been passed upon by Messrs. Dow m,
charlton and pronounced by them 10 b,
forgories. Roth Of these gentlemen state,
ihat they had never signed any warrants
IN blank. There were also found two othe
warrants, one Ia favor of j. C. Downes
dated May s, 1902 No, IT3, for SS75. pur
porting 20 bear the signature Of Jane,
charlton, president, and the Endorsement o
J. {. DoRnes, and the other IN favor o
George j. Melunger, dated November &
ssvl, NO. %, for Sl2d0. also purperting I,
bear the signature OF James Charlton
president, aud the Endorsement OF Georg,
J, Melllnger on the former the presldent
signature IS pIonornced q forgery, ana IN,
lndoMement Is probably 4 forgery ma Mr.
bownes advised in his letter az Octohe
> lsO2, never Endorsed any warrant 10
$50" On the latter. George j. Mellinse
claims the Endorsement Is A forgery. N
him. ''''' wv