Evening journal., 1903-12-16

VIC NNSolloiltt Dy comptroller Kelley
nd the court. The letter follows:
% the Honorable. the Levy Court OF
New Castle County.
Gentlemen.
/ am Informed through the news
apers that az your last meeting YOU
assed a resolution declining TO give
he magistrates and constables a hear
ng before your body upon the matte
f their respective bills, or upon tn,
mounts Of said bills which were re
pectively disallotved by the comptrol-
er. l understand that this is n mat
ar entirely within your discretion
nd, you having exercised your discre
on in the prenniFs. without discus
ing further the Justice or injustice Of
our action. I have nothing further 70
ny upon that branch Of the contro-
ersy.
There is however. a matter to which
desire to cali the attention Of your
onorable body The comptroller in his
sport to you upon the bills of the
agistrates ana coestables made @
lumber OF charges against the magis-
ates of this city generally. Being
ne of such magistrates. the said
largcs are necessarily made agains
e, and inasinuch as such charges in
1lve serious official Irregularities and
ossibly violations Of the law. l desire
, make "a statem9nt 70 your honorable
'dy in reference thereto.
The first charge made is, that J
arged in my bin for five subpoenaf
each case, when as a matter Of fac
at was not che correct number OF
illnesses I'm .cfbch case respectively
admit that this charge Is correct
ID | do not see that there is any legal
stihcation for this practice. but /
ssire TO state, that IN following this
nctice I bat followed a custom
lich had been established and had ex-
ed IN this county for many years.
was informed by my predecessors g.
ce and by persons who had formerly
en- ocnsnbles of the county. that tl:is
been the custom for a long tim.
~ that. as a matter of fact, the Lew
'urt had given instructions that g.
'uld not pay for more than an az
&C. OF five Witnesses in each casa.
J upon such instructions this Gus
had groAvn up. desire furthcs
state that upon esenting nt.- frs
T. after my appointment, to the
nptrollers' Office I called the atten.
of Mr.. Clark. the comptrolier,s
x. (the dDmptrolier himself not be.
presently. 10 this matter and told
il Was not correct statement
g. witnesses summoned in each case
Il while / do not recollect his exact
rds. he gave me TO understand that
was the custom and that that wa
2 mnnner I'm which the Lew. Cc6ur
sired the bills to be madenrout. I dis
rtly recohect calliEifg~Mr. Clark's at
rtion tc this-.~inatter a second tim
sEo;ssf Eom him the same understand
rs before. Assuming that IN
mrtroncr had the same knowledg
this matter that his clerk had,
pears to me that the comptroller ha
ZEN knowingly permitting this Gus
,in to obtain and he should have gi'
me correct information in relatio
, the matter when 1 applied to n
ice for information.
The second charge is that issue
eparate warrants and made separat
harges therefor in cases where thei
ere several defendants connectc
.ith the sa,rre offense. In reference
his charge / desire TO state that bot
sfore and since the comptroller's II
estigation ! Aave gotten the advi'
a number OF the members Of the bi
{ this city, including Anthony His
ms. Herbert IT. Ward, David II. Ma
el Robert II. Richards, Walter l
ayes and others upon this point al
ley have all told me that I have /
al right TO issue a separate warrai
1r each defencunt in ssich @ case
above mentioned and I'm my discr
on, to give each defendant a sep
lte heariug or " hear them all t
ether. Of course. in the latter eve
here should be but one Judgment CO..
get no fees whatever for the hea
ngs which are held and the judgme
re- is the sum Of fifteen cents.
The third charge is that issu
variants under which the defendar
ere never arrested. but that r
ocket was written up as though {
,fendant was arrested and a heari
adj
The testimony produced by the CON
roller dlscloses evidence against
non this charge in only three cas-
Wit.
First-The case Of the STATE VS.. Osc
'lnton and Ernest SpantOn and
mCh there was testimony given bef'
ne comptroller by the defendants u
hey We're never In my ogiice nor "
here ever any charge against tn
lcfore inc. The evidence before
omptrolier further shows that WI
he name OF the prosecuting with
% the charge referred to was disc lo
" my bill he was never called hef
he comptroller to testify IN reaat
o the matter. To addition to my o
recollection Of the case. I have p
ured the amdavit OF John Wilma
he prosecuting witness in the c5
Who has sworn IN said ahldavit L
3 he swore out the warrant in the s
, ase. that there wns a trial before
n which the evidence was heard
he case dismissed and at which b
IF the said defendants were pros,
,. living the dates upon which th
~ vents happened. a copy of this .
lavit Is hereto attached
The second case is that OF the st
Ia vs. Harry Seals. being a charge
;. lon-support made by Seals wife.
this case the defendant was not ac
ally arrested for the reason that
p was not IN the jurisdiction at the Il
'e that the warrant was first sworn {
but subsequently. as the evidence
|. fore the comptroller shows, and n.
: the fact, the parties came to me vol
tarily and the prosecuting witness
sired TO withdraw her charge for
reason that she and her husband w
then living contentedly together in {
city, and upon this showing of "a