The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1912-05-15

1nissioner's report, 1912 quoted by
you requires, as you state, that such
accounts be itemized and verified" :"
This requirement, when made in
reference to county claims, was pass
ed upon by the supreme court IN
Bank V. Goodwin, 81 S. c. AT.
There the court said: There are
very strong practical reasons Of pub
lie policy for regarding the enactment
mandatory and not directory. The
items and oath are required not only
that the county boards Of commlss-
iocers Gin this case the goVernor)
may be satisfied with the account, but
that the board and It's successors n
Office Gin this case the comptroller
general and legislative examining
committees) as we'll as the grand
jury and the citizens at large may, by
examination Of the claims, ascertain
how the affairs Of the county Tin this
case of the state) have been conduct
ed. II it be within the power OF the
county board OF nmissioners (here
we may say Of the governor) to audit
and approve claims not made out
with items and veihcation, 1t would
be within their power to allow claims
so made out as to give no informa-
ton as to their origin and character,
and thus keep those officially concern
ed for the welfare of the county (ln
this instance, Of the state) and the
citizens generally in complete igner-
ance OF the management Of public
works and appropriation Of the pub
lie revenue" p. 429 and 431.
Again the court there said: In
determining whether the claims were
itemized and verified as required by
law, substantial and not technical
and precise compliance with the let
ter of tic statute should be the test.
To iteIniZe an account means
70 state in detail the particulars OF
IL, so that the account may be exam
ined and its correctness tested
(This means not only by the governor
but also the comptrcller-general be-
fore be issues his warrant on the
state treasurer, and subsequently By
them generally, when merely the
different articles furnished or the
different services rendered are set
down without dates, one Of the most
:snportant particulars necessary to the
examination Of the account IS omit
ed. Especially is this true when the
board, whose duty It is to examiae in
to the correctness Of the account is
limited to the consideration Of claims
arising within the current or preced-
ing year"
Mr.. Creightons account simply
states: For SPECIAL services render
ed for one month ending April p,
1912" This does not specify the
particular services, Of the particular
dates when rendered and neither the
comptroller-general or examining
committee could ascertain from this
for what the money 81 to be PAID.
; have no desire whatever to ham
ger any officer in the enforcement Of
law or performance OF his duties.
BIT: WIS elected on the platform
that Public Office is public trust, .
and Public officials should be held 10
IA rigid accountability FOR public
funds"
therefore request that Mr.. Creign-
:oc's account TO be SO iterized as to
let me know for what particular ser
v!ces ne is being paid, In order that
the matter may bs properly examined
into.
! This has always been the practice
of this office, and Of che governors 5
o:Eices previous te your admiaistra-
ton. n this has been varied durlQ 3
your administration 1t has been
'