Arizona silver belt., 1904-10-13

k"bSu III ehc cAuiuluhtAoh oi oo"heJ
 records, when he commenced to talk of
 what he had found out, contrary to all
 rules and propriety in such n case, and
 he confined to give out ''information"
 throughout the period of his employ
 ment, seriously rehecting upon county
 officials, which more complete investi-
 gations proved to be groundless, ac-
 cording to his own statements.
 One of the most objectionable fea-
 lures of his report, and which is deserv
 ing of severe censure, is the singling
 out of certain individuals, ex-oflicials
 of the county, and one at present hold
 ing office, and severely criticizing them
 for obtaining advances on their salaries
 without presenting warrants for the money, and insinuating very strongly
 that a large portion of the moneys thus
 drawn as advances, was not returned
 and that Mir. Morehead was the victim
 of his friends, whom he thus accommo-
 dated. The heinousness of this otfense
 by Treasurer Morehead and his friends
 Is dwelt upon, while the present county
 officers are not mentioned at all us hay
 ing engaged in thls repreheusible prac-
 tice, although the records show that
 the members of the present board of supervisors, Chairman l.. c. Woods not excepted, and the district attorney have all drawn money from the county treasury unlawfully, as advances. Yet Mir. Hickey, when asked if such was not the case, and with full knowledge
 that the records contained the indis- putable evidence that they had drawn advances, denied it.
 To emphsize Mir. Hickey's hypocracy in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that he censures the practice of the treasurer advancing money without re- ceiving at the time of paymeut legal warrant, and cites Section 39S, of Crimes Against the Revenue, covering this offense, yet he hiiasei ubetted the violation of the statute by Q D aiming ad- vances from the treasurer rom time to time during the period of his employ ment by this county, to the amount of $500 in the aggregate, without ever presenting warrant, but simply upon order of the chairman of tie board of supervisors, who appears to have con sti.uted himself the ''whole thing"
 Also, in his reference to Treasurer Hitchcock, this remarkable expert as much as says that any Irregularities found in his records and accounts are excusable and ohargeable to his prede- cessor. To use MT. Hickey's own words "Mr Hitchcock having great in the ability of Mir. More head to keep records correctly, en. deavored to follow in his footsteps, without further guidance, and having htsle idea of the plan of double entry set of books, and the methods and sys- tem of MT. Morehead being as above described, it was certain to lead MT. Hitchcock into carelessness and error" That is q remarkable statement in | view of the fact that Mr. Hitchcock | was Mir Morehead's predecessor, as we'll as successor, in the treasurers office.
 If anything further was needed to utterly discredit the statements made by Mir. Hickey in his report, his own contradictions and retractions, and par ticularly the two aflidavits made by him aud attached to the report by or deI of the chairman. are sufficient to destroy the credibility of other state ments contained in the report.
 There seems to be no good reason to doubt that Mir. Hickey made his TO. port conform in its main features to the wishes of the chairman of the board of supervisors, who, during the time 'f Mir. Hiokey's investigations, was in ,lose touch with him, and as chairman, his work. As proof that Chairman Woods exercised his author ty even as to the wording of certain portions of the report, we will cite one instance. J. H. Thompson protested gainst his name being used in the re- 'ort in the way it is, the language i'm dying that he had received advances ,, which ho had not afterwards ac- ounted for, and Mr. Hickey agreed to , hange that particular paragraph so as ! Q eliminate the names of Messrs. thompson, Stoneman and others, and lake a general statement in reference $