The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-01-17
rwo CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE

reimburse Mr.. Worth for the thousands
stolen from him The bill VIII likely
become a law, while the bill
in the JUS by a member from SaTnp-
son to pay the O fde OF the
state has not the ghost Of a chance to
pass. The state should be just before
being generous.-Lumberton Argus.
It will be remembered that when
Treasurer Lacy went nto office he re-
tanned for a short while the men who
held office under mis- predecessor until
he and his assistants could learn the
ropes" Martin was one of these. He
had embezzled quite a large sum dur
ing the administration Of the former
treasurer and kept up his peculattons
under Treasurer Lacy, the latter
amounting to only a few hundred COL
lars. The legislature refused to relieve
former Treasurer Worth from his liza
bility for the stealing done by one OF his
clerks. The last legislature, we believe
took the same course regarding Clerk
Martins defalcatian under the succeed
ing
Now there is a bill pending to gran:
relief to Treasurer Lacy for the amount
stolen after he took charge of the state
treasury.
There is some difference between the
two ases we admit. Martin was the
appointee of the former officer and 1t is
to be supposed that the latter vouched
for his honesty and integrity.
though he attempted to secure himself
against any possible loss by requiring
a bond of him. MI. Lacy kept him
there for a short while in order that
his own appointees might have the
benefit of his experience in learning the
duties of the office. But he was an
a%ppointee of Mr. Lacy. The latter
should have seen that he and the state
through him were properly protected
against any such contingency as did
occur.
We have a high personal gar for
Mr.. Lacy and we recognize the fact
that the state has " had a more eff
fcient, honest and highminded offici1',
but we are constrained to say that we
think it a bad practice to establish, to
relieve him from responsibility to the
oIdSC 1ol LHS 1OSS VI kAAo AAAoJ
dishonesty Of one of his assistants. Be
cause of our high regard for MI. Lacy
personally and of our esteem for him as
a mode state treasurer we would like
to take a view of the case more favora-
BILE to him, but we cannot bring The
Messenger to say We think he should
be relieved of his responsibility and
tho lose n,1f 1,nnn tho Cta ia TT iS a
small amount and the state would hard
ly miss it,, but il is a bad precedent
to tablis and il should not he done.
AS to the other matter referred TO
in the above article from The Argus,
there is in u mind more uncertainty.
We are not prepared to say that the
state should refuse to pay these West
ern North Carolina railroad bonds, nor
can we declare positively for their pay
ment, ten thousand dollars worth (par
| Talue) of which are involved in the
South Dakota suit.
These bonds stand on a different foot
ing all together from what are known
as the special tax bonds whose issue
and marketing were a fraud on the
state and from which the state received
not n cent of profit Or remuneration.
They have been repudiated long ago.
These Western North Carolina rail-
road bonds stand On an entirely differ
ent footing. Their validity has been
twice recognized by democratic legis-
latures of the state and We're issued
under authority granted by the state
when the conduct of her affairs were
in the hands of ner most sterling cfti-
zens. Their validity was first recog-
nized by a legislature composed of
members of the same party which show
has control of state affairs" when that
body, in order TO increase their value
or the market pledged ten shares CT
stock held by the state in the Nor.1
Carolina railroad as additional security
for each bond. AT that time the state
owned a large share of the stock of
the Western North Carolina railroad
and the proceeds Of these bonds was
used in building that road. Their va
lidity vas again recognized by the DEM
ocratic legislature of 1879 when that
body proposed to the holders Of these
bonds to refund them at a certain dis
count and did actually accept a numbe~
from persons who agreed to the propo-
sition, and issued other bonds in their
stead. Those holders who refused this
proposed compromise surely did not
lose their rights by so doing. Their orig
inal contract with the state was not
abandoned by their refusal to compro-
mise.
There may be other conditions and
circumstances existing which would re-
lieve the state from liability On these
non-refunded bonds. but if there are
such we canno recall them just now.
Therefore, as we said above, we are
not nranared To SaI that wo think the