The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1909-07-01


"dispensary muddle" called forth by
the report of Deputy Alexander tc
State Inspector and Examiner Chas
A. Taylor, is largely an imaginary
muddle, a tempest in teapot; veri
table mountain manufactured from a
mole hill, and the report has been sc
badly garbled by the partisan and sen
sational reports sent to various news
papers that it does not in the least
resemble the original report or reflect
the intentions of the deputy inspector
who made the examination.
The state agency (dispensary) has
always been a subject of severe criti-
|cism from the so-called whisky
crowd" and also from many ultra pro-
|hibitionists, and every possible effort
has been made to discredit it.
r. E. Lozier, first superintendent,
spent many laborious days and sleep
less nights trying to work out sys-
tenn that would comply with the law
and at the same time be simple en-
ough to handle the business expedi-
emily. We found that he had to deal
with more than seventy-fve agencies,
large force of enforcement officers,
and a whole regiment of county Off
GERS who also assisted in enforcement,
The $4,000 appropriation made by
the first legislature for the purpose of
not only running the agency but to
cover the cost of enforcement OF pro-
hibition, according to law could only
be paid out by the auditor on orders
signed by the governor. Besides this
original appropriation, money was con-
tinually coming in from the sale of
liquors by seven or eight local agencies
and from confiscations. Thousands of
checks must necessarily be drawn, en-
failing much clerical work. Superin-
tendent Lozier conceived the idea of
superintendent fund"
into which the proceeds of the sale of
liquors could be deposits and upon
which checks for running expenses
could be drawn without calling upon
the governor for his signature each
time that a check was drawn. 1t is
this fund that has caused the trouble.
The deputy examiner did not rec
ognize this as lawful fund. The re-
port of Mr.. Alexander has been sadly
by persons who only
read portions of it. 1t does not hint
at Interpretations it does not ac-
cuse anyone of theft. 1t does criticise
the method of bookkeeping employed
in the state agency and insists that
the money paid to enforcing officers
should only be paid on sworn state
ments accompanied by receipted
This recommendation calls forth a
difference of opinion-an honest diff
terence. Governor Haskell points out
hat if enforcing officers be compelled
o file public statements as to who are'l
paid for the secret service that it
would destroy the efficiency of the SER
vice by disclosing to the violators of
he law the names of the secret ser
vice man.
So far as Attorney General West is
he is said to have already
lied vouchers with the state auditor
which viii show who received every
penny Of money paid out by this or
ler- If it be necessary to do this,
here is no doubt that enforcing at
orney, Caldwell, can and will do the
'ame.
There are few people here who be-
ieve that Mr. Lozier. or any other Off
'er connected with the agency has
iyer received a dishonest dollar, and |
hat the worst that can be said is that
heir bookkeeping failed to come up
o the standard required by the state
Inspector and examiner.
in speaking of the report this morn /
ng Mr. Taylor. state Inspector and I
called attention to the fact
hat he had not accused any officer
# wilful wrong doing, and also stated
hat when sworn statements are prop