The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1909-07-29
HOW REFoRAl,sKs Rhrs..s.

The Sioux FAN August. = duar
touches to some extent on the n4..-
ter of interest on state fundG aAa ne
connection former state treasurer
Cassill had Vain them-ltkewlse of
the attitude the reform state lsglsla-
ture toward his successor. George
johnson. .Ae AIgus-Leader also
weaves into the story the association
of Senator Crawford with the fUrmer
state treasurer to indicate, pe.naps,
how sincere the senator is ca tne 1e-
form proposition. 1t indicates tat
there is something else aside from
real reform in the progressive wing
of the republican party. TIE Argus
Leader says:
When G. H. Cassill OF Canton
made the race for state treasurer ns
ran as a reformer, and promised til,
people that if elected a law would BIZ
passed giving all of the interest on
state funds to the state. Mr.. Cass Ii
was believed, as Mr.. Crawford was
believed (Tne people are SO easy) an
Mr.. Cassill was elected. A bill was
introduced to give the state all Of:
the interest on state funds, and Cas-
sill and Crawford worked against 1t
increasingly and caused its defeat.
Mr.. Cassill was made vice presi-
dent" of a Sioux Falls bank which
had a large state deposit, and when
he left the state he took with him a
large amount of money which really /
belonged to the state.
I'm the next campaign the stall
warts put up George Johnson of Can
ton as their candidate for state treas
urer. Mr.. johnson said, in his plat
form, that whether the law was
changed or not, he would account 10
the state for all interest on state
funds and would be satisfied with the
salary paid by the state. Mr.. john
son was elected and is now serving
his term. Let us note what has hap
pened.
"In the first place, the reform legis-
Ilature refused to give Mr. Johnson a
stenographer at $3.50 per year. The
legislature which was controlled by
the reformers vas trying to punish
the state treasurer for cutting into a
slice of graft. The interest bill was
defeated by the Crawford legislature,
but after a stalwart treasurer was
elected it was enacted, when the en-
actment was not necessary, as Treas.
urer johnson had already started the
popular policy of accounting to she
state for all interest on state funds.
LET us note the results. The in
l~terest on state funds amounted to
$1,5S3.36 for the month of June
alone. At this ratio, 1t means that
Mr. Cassill got about $4,000 a year
out of the interest on state funds and
he probably got more than this, be-
cause the present state treasurer has
been paying OF debts and has kept
the funds at a low ebb, while the re-
form treasurer stood of the pay
ments of warrants at the expense OF
the state, in order to get the interest
lon the funds in the banks.
ct is worth noting that the in
terest on the state funds for the
month Of June was nearly enough to
pay the salary Of the treasurer for a
year. Sti-l, the last legislature mean
lily refused to give to the stalwart
state treasurer a 1920 stenograpEer
to help him with his work. while the
same reform outfit had given a
stenographer to Treasurer Cassill and
at the same time allowed him to get
away with interest amounting to
about $4,000 a year! Mr.. Cassill left
the state and located elsewhere. not
being willing to take the chance of
a suit for the $4,000 which went in
to his pocket instead of into the cof-
fers Of the state. Great is reform
and Crawford is It's prophet.
Estate Treasurer Johnson has done
other things in addition to account
ing to the state for the interest on
state funds. He has made a saving
to the state by reducing the interest
paid on revenue warrants. This item
alone would pay his salary and still
he was not good enough in the eyes
of the ''reformers" to Justify the al
Ilowance Of a 1920 stenographer.
The taxpayers of the state are
bound to take notice. The reform
treasurer COPIED off about $4,000
of Interest a year, some of which he
was compelled to invest in a reform
newspaper. The stalwart treasurer
Il - S4---~.. --L T. ~.a