The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-21
NO INVESTIGATION
BY LEGISLATURE
CONTINUED from First page.)

---
intelligently. and that as soon as we
could get a copy of the report of the
expert accountant. as promised. we
would still further ''alter" and cor
rect the reports of Chesterfield coun-
ty. In this connection. we call at
tention to the fact that Mr.. Bellwood,
one of the complainahts. had express
ed to the State board Of education at
its meeting on November %. 1911, his
appreciation OF the help rendered. and
the courtesies extended the COM
plainants by the department.
Second. The charge that county
superintendent have neglected to
have printed and posted in the county
their annual reports of the various
districts, reports Of receipts and dis
bursements OF public funds. as pro-
vided by law, was answered by the
statement that this Ia a matter over
which the department has absolute
Is no control.
Third. The charge that there have
been collected various sums of
money deposited and checked out by
district clerks and trustees In violation
of the law, which says that all money
shall be paid out by and through
the county treasurer, the money
being deposited to the credit Of
school trustees In banks and check
ed out by them was answered by
the statement that this too was q local
matter. concerning which the depart
ment had no knowledge or means of
knowledge. The answer OF the local
school officials showed that all Of the
money had been properly accounted
for.
-Four The charge that the clerks
Of the school districts We're not re-
quired 10y the superintendent Of
schools to keep proper books and
records. according to law. was an
swered. SO far as the Department Of
Public Instruction was concerned, by
showing the work and interest OF the
department in supplying, free OF cost,
proper account books, record books
and blank forms for this very pur-
pose.
Fifth. The charge that the depart
ment has not required the county
superintendent of schools to file his
annual report In time required by
law was answered by reading the
| regulation of the State Board of
Education and 10y showing that the
department did insist upon this re-
quirenent and had always taken rea-
sonable measures to enforce the
same.
Sixth. The charge that the SUI
| perintendents report showed dis
elimination in the apportionment Of
school funds In favor Of Bermuda
oistrlct, which was given more than
one-third I-3) of all the funds ap-
portioned to the county. was answer
ed by the statement that the sub
superintendent OF school funds among
me districts 81 a comfy was placed
ny law entirely in the hands of the
! division superintendent.
1t Is worthy of mention that the
! attention OF the department had been
called to the alleged discrimination
In favor of Bermuda district for one
, year. but upon investigation It was
| found that the apportionment had
oeeh properly made. No other spe-
cine instance of any alleged discrimi-
nation has been reported to me.
seventh The charge that Bermuda
ustricf was permitted to Issue school
warrants amounting to more than So
ooo While there was only $3.50 to
ITS credit In the hands of the treasurer
was answered by the statement that
THIS was local matter concerning
which the department had no knowl-
edge and no means OF knowledge.
Eighth, The charge that certain
scnool funds and other negotiable col
lateral were held by the clerk OF Ber-
muda district. and not deposited with
the county treasurer until December
18th, nor disclosed to the special ac-
countant as late as November IS, 1911,
was answered by the local officials
with statement that these funds
ana other negotiable collateral were
not collected by them until near the
middle OF December, 1911. and were
n tha frs.l
promptly as possible.
Ninth. The additional charge, which
" ;.a-Ifet stated III the written CONF
paint hled by these citizens, to the
erect that the State board Of educa-
uon mad loaned more money'.tO Man.
chester district than The addition 10
the building on which the money was
loaned cost. which money ia secured
ny a mortgage on Q building and lot
which the country docs not own was
answered by presenting the record In
the case. which showed that the loan
was IN perfect form. that the title to
the property was approved by the
attorney general, and that the amount
cf the loan was tustIhen py sne fscfs
stated IN the application. We, also
pointed out that the statute does not
authorize or provide for mortgage
on the property on which school
building is erected. but does give the
literary fund far better lien. towit:
lien on the funds Of the school dis 4
frict. Two fln,,un ~ o1A kssVfSAd.