The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1911-03-07

Did anybody stay at home y was tbs
question put by Supreme Court Justice
Voorhe es. on Saturday, when a score Of
Burlington county citizens filed into his
Office at New Brunswick There were
members of the Board of Freeholders,
former county officials, members of the
committee which Investigated the charges
against the asylum and others, all drawn
to the place In response to summons to be
In readiness to give testimony in the re-
quest for an order to show cause why the
expenditures by the Board of Freeholders
should not be investigated. Mr.. Lohand
was not present,
The argument was opened by Mr.. Pal
mer, who contended that the Board of
Freeholders had exceeded their appropria-
tions and in support of this contention
presented the report of the Auditor for
several years back. He argued that while
there was an apparent balance, it had all
been consumed by outstanding notes which
should have been paid. If they had been
Cancelled there would not have been any
money in the treasury. Mr.. Palmer took
several appropriations separately and
showed that the amounts expended were
In excess of the sums appropriated. In
speaking of the charges 10 the bill of par
ticulars against the asylum, Mr.. Palmer
said he was not armed with facts but had
witnesses to substantiate the claims he
presented. Justice VOORHEES, said he did
not care to hear witnesses at that time.
He said he was not interested in the man.
agement of any institution beyond the
question of whether there had been illegal.
ity in the expenditure of money and the
only subject he would give attention to
now was whether the Board of Free
holders had. in the transaction of their
business, exceeded their authority and
gone beyond the legal limit in spending
money.
In response to Mr.. Palmer, Mr.. Rigg,
solicitor of the Board, contended that
there had not been anything wrong in the
actions of the Freeholders. He called at
tention to the fact that while many of the
appropriations appeared to have been
overdrawn in reality they had been
taken care of under the statute which
provides for the transfer from unsp
propriated balances to items that need
assistance. The Auditors report does not
show this. and Mr.. Rigg said If the report
was taken as whole it would be seen
that there had not been any overdrafts.
After hearing the arguments on both
sides, Justice Voorhees, said he thought
he had listened to enough to get him
tangled on the finances of Burlington
county. He thought the reports of the
Auditor were not as full and satisfactory
as they might be by not showing the
amounts transferred from one account to
another and not showing the balances in
the different departments at the close of
the year. Where a case has been made
showing misappropriation of funds it was
decidedly proper to have thorough in
vestigation. but he did not care to order
such action until it had been concluslvely
shown that there was utmost necessity for
investigation.
Perhaps the matter might be reached
by having preliminary investigation.
1t was practically impossible to sit in his
Office and, after hearing the argument of
both sides to determine definitely what is
the best thing to do. He did not feel inss
clined to long official examinations. A
special examiner might be appointed who
would be kept down to looking into illegal
expenditures and not to other sorts of
irregularities. The statutes are SO capable
of different constructions that it requires
time to look into the different phases of
subject.
Justice VOORHEES, took the papers in the
case and said he would give the subject
his careful attention and would render a
decision In few days.