Omaha daily bee., 1904-12-29
MOCKETT, ACER OR STEUFFER
Continued from First Page.)

moments notice of what II was tofbe an
piled to. The talk of censuring the board
of Burt county is ridiculous and Is only
made for the purpose of throwing dust
Since the first OF what is called the Burt
county bond matter was made public the
friends of Mr.. Stueffer have been busy In
trying to make II appear, as Ager infars,
that Burt county factional fight is In
volyed; as Mr.. Mockett says. he has been
told that the Burt county board should be
censured, Both are outrageous statements.
Question Really Involved.
The question is not an inquiry into the
Burt county factionallsm, which We have
not In Burt count, whether the board
made a good or bao -die Of the bonds. The
question is an inquiry into Mr.. Stueffer's
conduct of his Office as treasurer. If that
Office was conducted with integrity, then
his bond was rightly paid for by the state.
IL he was furnishing the states money for
friends to buy the bonds he should have
bought in the first instance; II he was keep
ing money that belonged to the state in his
own bank, on which interest was not paid;
II he was getting interest privately in a
manner that indicated an intention to keep
such interest sums-then such payment vas
wrongfully made. This was all shown
against Mr.. Stuefter as the only natural
conclusion from his own testimony, a copy
of which 1 have. There were about 100
members In the house of the Twonty-sev-
enth session. Can Mr.. Ager or Mr.. Mockett
find one of these members that will say
that he would have helped use the states
money to pay for Mr.. Stuefferg bond had
Mr.. Stueffer made known the fact that he
was so going to use the funds OF the state
treasury There were 100 members of the
last session. including Mr.. Mockstt. Is there
one Of those members. including Mr.
Mockett. that will say that he would have
voted the 5000 to Mr.. stueffer for the last
years bond had he, known that the treasury
money had been SO used7 VIII Mr.. Ager
say that an appropriation OF 5000 should
have been made to Mr. Stueffer to pay for
his last years bond II the states funds had
been used as is here indicated2 These are
the questions.
Committee Already PEedicted.
I say that the committee was partially
made up Of those prejudiced on this ques-
ton, It having probably been misled and
wrongfully prejudiced During the hearing
one OF the members came to me and asked
me what expected to show l refused TO
talk to him on the evidence and told him
that / would argue the evidence and the
facts to the committee, and that / had
never tried a case on the street In my
opinion this committee was prejudiced ana
biased because OF what had been wrong
fully told them, that it was a factional Burt
county night and spite was being wrong
fully vented on Mr.. Stueffer. In my opinion
1t did not know to what conclusions the |
testimony taken lead on the question In
volved. To illustrate, will ask each MEM !
ber Of that committee: Would you have |
reported favorably Upon that bill II you had |
realized on one item or admission alone |
that for ten months Mr.. Stueffer had taken |
cashiers checks running to himself person |
ally from the First National bank or |
Omaha, and that he had kept these for ten |
months without turning them into the 1
treasury, and then only turned them In on |
the day that the Burt county bond matter |
had been taken up with Governor Savage, |
and that this manner Of making money |
from the states money was one which MT. |
stueffeE's predecessor had used, and was
known to the once as a manner Of graft?''
Such as would. hold up your hand. ven-
ture the opinion that no member that was
In the house two years ago and voted for
the allowance in question could be re-
elected In his county IL he had known OF
these facts and his people knew that he
knew and realized II before voting.
The committee in question should have
been named from both parties; II should
have been such that from it's inception the
strongest members in the house would will
lingiy have served upon. After the evI-
dence had been received II should have lis
tened TO argument OF its COUNSEL 1t should
then knowingly have made It's report which
should have been knowingly. acted upop By,
the house. These were all more or less vio-,
lated in the instance referred to. "a
stusner's share I'm Matter.
In the beginning OF the bond deal inquiry
Governor Savage wrote me that be considr
"a q great Wrong had been done The |