The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-10-30


count for certain Inconsistencies In
speeches he has recently made.
Mr.. Hill very pertinently wishes to
know how 1t Is that. II. as reported.
Mr.. Rich has been declaring that the
governor has no control Of the state
treasurer, or the disposition Of the
treasury funds, when Mr.. Rich was
governor, in 1894, he removed the then
state treasurer for gross neglect OF
duty" In that instance, the neglect
was not the serious one Of mishand-
ling state funds, Mr.. Hill points OUT
but of joining In an untrue return
Through afflxing his signature) from
the board Of state canvassers, as to
the passage OF certain constitution
al amendment.
The supreme court, Mr.. Hill shows,
In this very case Of removal Of the
state treasurer on the part Of Mr..
Rich, made clear the point that the
governor HAS control uf the state
treasurer. -
In reviewing the Glazier incident
and showing that II was clearly the
duty OF Gov. Warner Immediately to
remove State Treasurer Glazier for
his much more serious neglect OF duty,
MIR. Hill takes occasion to say that
Gov. Warner connlved with GIaxier In
disposlng Of the states money as 1t
suited him best
A Warm Letter.
Following is the letter OF Mr.. Hill
to Mr.. Rich:
Hon. John T. Rich, Detroit. Mich:
Sir:-As an old and admiring
friend / write to know whether the
statements made in the public press
AL t.sx
public speeches: that you have been
governor and are now state treas
urer, and that the governor has no
control over the state treasurer, or
where he puts the state funds.
recall the fact that In 1894 you.
as governor. removed the state
OF duty" not as to handling the
funds OF the state, but because, as
member OF the board of state
an untrue return as to the passage
OF a certain constitutional amend
+ ment.
1t was not shown that ne was
guilty OF any Intentional wrong as
he trusted to clerks for tabulatfons.
but the court held that he had no
he had verified results. and that II
otherwise. and his removal from
ONCE by you was sustained.
Court Made Point Clear.
The way for the governor to
control the treasurer and his funds,
as was made clear In that case by
him from ONCE for gross neglect
OF duty, or for corrupt conduct In
office" as provided In our state con-
What the governor could have
done and should have done in the
sprIng OF 1907, when he learned OF
him from ONCE and turned the state
That would have been controlling
lac could not control II. '"a
Published interviews with War
ner show that he talked over the
Banking commi.sio s" zimme els
man in the spring OF 1907. At that
time there was over s5oo.o0 of
bank examiners report shows that
eriminaliy and there was no proper q
Ile also knew that the state
nsr:S bank I ~ $4,000 With a BOND BOND
two acts OF the treasurer consti-
tute such gross neglect of duty"
as wosid have led you, I believe:
the state treasurer his resignstion.
Treating the treasurer with leri-
ency. you would at least have re-
eSrity for the FUNDS IN prI Soth ' Of
these banks.
1t was easy and simple, and in
the line OF duty to have thus con-
trolled the treasurer. and the state
funds. and you know that IL was
not done, and there are thousands
OF people In the state who know
why II was not done.
Blamss Warner Directly.
The principal facts stated in the
indictment OF Glazier were known
to Gov. Warner and his banking
cn,slniss Toner In the spring OF la05
yet he allowed the deposit OF state
money In Glazier's bank TO In
crease nearly 100000 before he
failed. and every dollar of this In
crease was clearly because OF Gov
Warmers conniving with Ulazier In
specializing In state funds.
To show again that the COVER
nor controlled the treasurer and
his funds. are two letters written
by Warner to Glaxier, asking him
to place $4,000 I'm certain banks
where. to quote from Warmers let
ter. such deposits will neip us
The governor. therefore. does
control the treasurer. and the de-
posit OF the state moneys. when
they are Illegally or improperly or
cowrrDtly dcno.ited for that con-
stitutes gross neglect of duty"