The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-03-20
AS TO coNUNDRUMs.

Superintendent Cooper tells the Bull
letin that he does not see any conun-
drum in the matter of the shortage of
s2S37.S5, the initial responsibility for
which lies with the present disbursing
clerk of the Board of Public Works.
Let us try and make his vision clearer.
Charles Wilcox received money to pay
out for the monthly wage scale of road
! boards. and instead OF using 1t for that
as the law requires, he turned II over
so he says-to b. II. Wright. who had
no more business with 1t than he had
| with the Governors salary. The
money was stolen by some one, and the
sole defence of its legal custodian is
that he made an unlawful deposit of 1t
with an unauthorized depository
Conundrum: This being clear case of
malfeasance in office, why was not
Wilcox suspended from duty and his
case reported to the grand jury?
Says the Bulletin: MIR. Cooper said
To the reporter that the o U held by
Clerk Wilcox against payments alleged
to have been made to Wright was for
A larger amount than the shortage.
but of an earlier date, and that, ac-
cording to Wilcox, 1t was sort of con-
tinuing / o y taken for his own pro-
lection"
This suggests the conundrum of
where the interests of the government
were cared for under a system which
permitted clerks to loan public money
to each other on continuing l o Us"
which were not related to more than
one of several loans made and were
merely taken for individual protection.
Charles Wilcox intimates that he
gave the s2337.s5 to B. II. Wright be-
cause of the directions given by j. II.
Boyd TO all clerks in the Department to
obey Mr.. Wrights orders as chief clerk.
Wright, he claims, asked for the cash
and, in the natural course of business
got it. II this is true why was 1t neces-
sary for Charles Wilcox to take an
l o U from Wright for his own pro-
lection? The conundrum is: Why
should he have assumed a continuing
responsibility for public funds
merely passing through his hands. after |
his chief had relieved him of them?
The fourth conundrum Is why |
Charles Wilcox, who confesses an un
lawful act by which the Treasury has |
lost S233I.S5 through somebody's theft, |
remains in the employ of the Board of !
Public Works? Is it because his broth |
ar Robert has friends in the Legisla
.ure?
The explanation is given by Supt.
Cooper and Deputy Auditor Mey-
,rs that the road board warrants dated
n June and July were cashed by Will
'ox at the bank and this cash turned
over to b. II. Wright; that later in
he year when the Government was in
'unds, the bank cashed the warrants
1t the Treasury and they were Endorsed
~ the Treasurer as being paid on the
late when presented by the bank.
The House Committee on Expendi-
ures reported yesterday that the Ka-
vaihau road board payroll dated July
Il, 1902, for s424.l0, is covered by war
ant dated Aug. Is, 1902. We quote:
This was endorsed by Mr.. Charles
Wilcox and drawn by him from the
Treasury. The date of payment by the
Treasury on warrant shows November
IS, 1902, over two months after b. III.
Wright left the Public Works Office.
q. c. Hapai, Registrar of the Treas
Try, stated to the Senate accountant ,
md your own that he was willing to
swear that this warrant was paid to
Charles Wilcox. November 25, 1902"
Conundrum No. 5.-Who invented the
explanation that the warrant was cash.
I'd by the bank and not by Wilcox?
\