East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1907-11-25
WOULD HAVE SAVED STEEL.

Had bill for the deposit of state
funds introduced by Representative
Charles A. Barrett of UmatiIla. be-
come of law at the last session of the
legislature Of Oregon, State Treasur-
sr steel would not be in his present
unfortunate predicament with the
school fund of the state.
Representative Barrett's bill pro-
Nided for the deposit Of ALL state
funds with the different banks of the
state: made the state board respon-
sible for the safe-keeping and secur-
ny of the funds; provided that no
hank could hold on deposit an amount
OF state funds equal to more than IS
per cent of the capital stock and not
more than 90 per cent of the value
Of the securities offered.
Steel opposed this BILL because as
he said. 'it took away all the author
iay of the state treasurer" The
whealdon bill, widely differing from
the Barrett BILL was introduced and
when the state fund depository bill
was passed 1t was a composite of the
Barrett bill and the Whealdon bill,
With the best features of both elm
mated and a number of loopholes
SKillfuiTy constructed by one of which
Mr. steel has easily slipped into his
present trouble.
The bill as finally passed excluded
The school funds from the scope of
the state depository law while the
Barrett bill included the school fund
and would have prevented a loss to
the state through the very act which
Nr. Steel has committed Under the
Barrett bill, ALL state funds would |
have been distributed to different |
banks over the state-in Pendleton, |
La Grande. Baker City, Ontario |
Huntington, PrinevlIe. Roseburg. sa-
lem, Ashland, Medford, Astoria-at
the discretion Of the state board.
AS It is the law now in force al
lows "banks or trust companies" prin-
cipally in Portland and Salem to hold |
the funds, excludes the school fund,
gives the treasurer more authority"
and the state has lost under this bill |
in the neighborhood Of 100000 for
nobody believes that the Title Guar
antee & Trust company, ]. Thorn
burn Ross or any Of that outfit will
ever pay its depositors in full
And so II may be asked, with every
justification, why did Mr.. Steel op-
pose the Barrett BILL and then with
in year lose almost half million
dollars. TO the state through an act
which the Barrett bill sought to pre-
v"7t. ~ including all state funds in
the state fund depository law?
Had the Barrett bill become a law.
the payment of political debts by the
use of enormous sums Of state school
funds would have been prevented.
The state money would have been dis
tfbuted over the state in small sums
and local banks everywhere would
have enjoyed this increased clrcula-
fling medium. The state treasurer
would not now be in trouble and the
school children Of the state would
have 100000 more funds than they
have today.
The state has not suffered through
any feature Of the present law which
was included In the Barrett bill. It
r. through acts which the Barrett bill
especially sought TO prevent that the
state is loser. These acts were made
possible under the present bill which
was constructed presumably to suit
Mr.. Steel.
II is to Umatilla county's credit
that she attempted to protect the
state funds, at least, and had her rep