The St. Mary banner. (Franklin, Parish of St. Mary, La.) 1889-1931, 1907-12-14


form no part anu<, \, ,hn e.
.4S.44 l.. shortage. -
ASaln Nj Snbert Cooke fails in his
balance sheet TO give US tie answer
and we can only ask: "Whereo"
For Inc public to answer we ask
&hc question: Was Sheriff Sanders
justified IN dist-h1Lreing his ,rustna
employc or not upon the cyid.,,.a -
2is emplD5e has himself placed hefnr,.
the public
The Vanishing Of s742.s2 - n
Thirty-Iwo Days Time.
III Inc balance sheet of March 81
1904, after accounting to his e,nnlnver
Tor every possible item thai ne c.,n,.,
Chief Deputy Cooke is confronted ri,n
IN unaccountcdfor shortage OF N
-so-b2 In the balance sheet OF Mav
!, 1904. after accounting to his en-
sloyer Tor every possible item that he
could, and With an additional thirty1
Two days in which to find lie same
chief Deputy Cooke is confronted with
an unaccoMntcd-for shortage or 81.
34S.44 IL.
Let us put it in this way, 50 that the
thirty-tWO days increase of unac-
counted for shortage can be easily
seen:
Balance sheet OF May /.
1904 - CnaIcounted-for
balance sheet Of March
81. 1s04--UnaccoLn united
D1f shortage .......... 5,S05.62
Increase OF unaccounted-for
shortage in thirly-two
Gays tllne IS 1852 "
In thirty-tWo days time, between
fhe making OF the two balance sheets,
there disappears from the books and
accounts of the office $742.so IL,
and the boollkeeper totally fails to
make any explanation therefor or ac-
count therefor. Assuming that every
dollar of this unaccounted-for short t
Hse, shown on the balance sheet of
March 81. 1904, was lost by careless
ness Of the bookkeeper prior TO that
date. did not his own balance sheet OF
March 81. 1904, made by him to show
10 his employer, apprise him dep
uty Cockc) of the fact? Was not he
Robert Cocke) put an his guard By
himself that something was wrong in
his bookllee ping and in his methods OF
handling the business OF the office
Put on his guard by himself Of date
March 81, 1904, should not his bal.
snce sheet OF May 1. 1904, show thai
If the business affairs OF the office
were administered and the book.
kept by him during the inter, enins
thirty-two days in the most careful
manner, no such deficits should AGAR
DGcur?
Giving him the benefit Of every as
set claimed by him in his balance
sheet OF May l, 1904. does not hi
(RObert r. Cocke's) balance shee
show that he (Robcat r. CoclSc) lost
during that thirty-two days, an add
tiDnal sum Of s74l.S2 IL. when com
pared with his balance sheet of Marcl
81. 1904.
He has not accounted for it to hi
employer, nor did he account for it I
the public. when he took the stand l
Mr. CHfferyS behalf,
When che man put by Sheriff San
del.s to investigate the books discusse
with Sheriff Sanders some Of thc-
things, is il unreasonable to believ
snto the office and abruptly dis
charged the chief deputy?
Again we ask the question OF IN
public: WAS Sheriff Sanders Just
fed in discharging this trusted en-
ploye rr not?'
Should Lieutenant Governor Sander
having been apprsed by Sheriff Saa
ders of some of these facts, nave II
tervened and have asked Sheriff J.
Sanders to reinstate Chief Deput
Cocker"
Mr.. d. Caffery gave Mr.. Robel
Cookies letter, in his ex-parte pampi
let, which he scattered through tf
city Of New Orleans: the tolioW,n
i-TY II. i. COOKE THROWS NOR
LIGHT on THE SUBJECT"
We respectfully submit to the Dui
lie that. when he took the stand. r!
chief Deputy r. r. Cooke did n
throw enough light on the subject:
has left us still chasing the Nanlshii
ghost Of tho unaccountcd-1or shor
AGE. and still trying to down u
haunting phantom OF "Whcrc did
:o"" r.,. - re
,,orsedp The answer we leave to Il
public.