The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1908-10-01


and his deputy were stockholders.
The auditor was president and his
deputy director. That bank had a
big deposit Of state funds. In Il the
auditor also deposits for collection
the checks he receives direct for ex
else and other taxes on corporations,
amounting to nearly 100000 per
year. Mr., Guilbert as auditor of the
state allowed himself as president Of
the bank time for the collection of
these checks, and the proceeds were
not entered to the credit of the state,
30 as to draw interest, until the ex-
piration of such time which ran from
one month to as long as eight months.
This was shown by an examination of
the pass books.
The committee could reach no con.
olusion, nor can I, except that the
purpose was to give the bank the use
of this money for long periods with
out interest. That was certainly the
effect, and every one is presumed to
intend the natural consequence Of
what he does.
cashler's Checks as Cash.
The law requires the auditor to pay
over to the treasurer the taxes SO
collected. He made these payments
by checks drawn by the cashier of the
bank on the bank itself to the order
of the treasurer.
The treasurer, with the aid Of his
deputy and office force, did manage to
keep q cash book. This showed as
weekly balances Of cash On hand right
along, in the vault, very large
amounts sometimes reaching more
than $1,100,000 and averaging about
three-Quarters of a million dollars.
This seemed extraordinary in view of
the laws design to prevent the states
money from lying idle, and Of the fact
that the treasurer kept in two Co.
lumbus banks an average of about
half million more which, as he stat
ed. he checks upon for the current
business Of the state" And, after the
foregoing disclosures Of ownership by
the auditor and treasurer and their
deputies Of stock In various banks
the suspicion was unavoidable that
these cashiers checks were held as
cash and not presented for payment,
thus, as in case Of the time allowed
for the collection Of checks Just men-
toned, giving the bank on which they
were drawn and through 1t these off,
cials at least to the extent Of their
stock, the use Of large amounts Of
state funds without interest.
The committee accordingly under
took to find out when these cashiers
checks were collected. There were
no records or even memoranda In the
office Of the treasurer to show 1t. The
committee then asked at the bank for
this information, or the paid checks
which would give 1t, but the auditor
OF state, as president of the bank, re-
fused to furnish the information OF
produce the checksl The affairs Of
customers could not be disclosed!
The customers were the auditor ana
the treasurer of Ohio officially and
the information was demanded by the
duly elected representatives of the
people of Ohio, whose money the
checks represented
Suppression Is Confession.
The mere loss of interest through
loose business methods would be bad
enough, especially In times such as
we are having. But 1t is a settled rule
of both law and common sense that
refusal to produce evidence in ones
possession proves that its production
would make out the case against him.
Suppression is confession. BY that
sure token those cashiers checks
were held as cash in order that the
state might lose and others, including
these officials, gain tho interest on
public funds.
am not skilled in the law Of
crimes, and It may be true, as the
governor declares, that these official
associates OF his did not steal this
interest, because by their own con-
duct 1t was kept from reaching the
treasury. IT may be, as the governor
says, that they did not "misapply" the
public funds, because that implies do
ing something with those funds while
by this plan they simply did nothing,
though with exactly the same result
of loss to tho state and gain to them
selves as II they had collected intnr-
est on the funds and put It IN theif
pockets.
Too Much Cooperative Serenity.
But l am skilled enough in the law
to know that those who thus Joined
In manipulating the deposit Of public
money can be made to pay every dol
lar which the state lost, or which they
gained by this smooth scheme. The
attorney generals attention was call
ed to this by the committee and he
was duly asked, last spring, by tax
payer Of Cleveland, and again by a
taxpayer Of Columbus, to bring suit
accordingly. This he has failed and
refused to do, giving no reasons. AS
a member of the board of deposit, was
he not also In duty bound to keep
some track Of the doings Of his asso-
ciates? There has been too much CO.
operative serenity about those state
Offices. There should be little sani-
tary disturbance.
People Must Decide.
am not framing an indictment
against these officials for technical
crime. am addressing the common