The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1908-04-10
THOUSANDS
Alleged to Have Been
Held For Months by
Guilbert in
PROCESS OF COLLECTION

Columbus, April S.-Thousands oil
dollars, representing tax collections,
have been held by Auditor of state
GuIlbert for months at time. TINS
money has not been deposited to the
credit OF the state, as explained by
Guilbert, because ut was In process
of collection" This process OF col
lection" appears to have covered a
multitude of items and circumstances.
To ascertain whether Auditor Gull
bert had violated the depository law,
by holding out large amounts when
they should have been deposited In the
state treasury, was the point ham,
mered at by the senate probing COM
mIttee today. Guilbert denied moth
ing. He is apparently callous TO
criticism. no matter what form II
takes. In an Icy manner, character
istic of the man, Guilbert explained
his reasons for holding back the tax
collections.
The depository law became efrec-
tive January, 1905. Expert account
ants reported that more than $1,000
600 had been collected In the excise
taxing period, during the latter part
of the year, and held by Guilbert.
The auditor explained that this mon
ey had been paid in checks. The cor
porations making the payments, Gull
bert testified, made the request that
collection be withheld for "accommo-
dation sake" Most Of the money
came from public service corporations.
The checks were not cGshed, Gullbert
testified, because the payments were
made during the interest bearing time
Attorney William H. Boyd, for the
began feeling out the
auditor as TO what taxes he received
or collected, consisting OF excise reve-
nues from corporations under the
Cole and Nicholas laws and the In
heritance tax, when that law was in
force. These taxes, or those now ef-
fectiye, are payable in November and
December of each year, and are paid
In checks and drafts or New
York exchange. Boyd asked Gull
bert TO explain why s7.16292 was
held In his hands from May, 1904,
until the following November, but
juilbert could not recall that such
! thing was done. He was also ask
d TO explain why in November there |
was, according to the books, sl,407,- |
,54.Cs to his credit coming from the
,xcise taxes.
His explanation was that he usually |
'eeived verbal or written requests
rom the persons making the pay
nents TO hold them. and he made a |
rotation on the back OF the check or
iraft and would place II in the safe
n his Office. As the time expired, in
accordance with the notation. he |
would deposit the paper in the banks
or collection and turn the money /
,ver to the treasury. This was done
ls an accommodation 10 the payer,
,hiefy because an excuse would be
given that the latter part OF the year
vas the interest bearing period.
Guilbert turned inquisitor and ask
W boSu "a no aiWdyb pdiu MS ldAeb
December 2o when they were due,
md II when he paid them later there
we're any penalties exacted by the
Iuditor for violation OF the laws.
Boyd acknowledged that he did not
Ilways pay December 20, and Guilbert
hen made a point that II he did not
lie was subject to penalty.
Boyd in his questions led those at
he hearing TO believe that all the
money appropriated to the separate
was taken Immediately
rom the state treasury and deposited
n the banks picked out by the finan-
ial officer. Guilbert explained that
uch was not the case.