The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1912-08-20

orders we're issued TO him covering
the amount ciained-
The report states that the i.w re-
lafinx 90 the naking % the sherfrs
settisnsnts has not been complied
vifh IN Ohio county. I, being pointed
out that the s~ttienents have not been
made a. the time required b. lac ana
thar % has not been practiced IN Ohio
county 20 make q record Of the sher-
IDS settlements IL further states
that strict compliance with the Law
relating 10 the making OF the sherir-s
settlement should Be followed In Ohio
county.
ciemans Makes Statement.
With reference 10 the above. Sher-
IN Clemans last night made the fol
lowing statement to the papers:
When ! took hold OF the sherirrs
Office there was absolutely no def
mite question settled regarding com
missions and compensations. sim
ply followed the precedens set BY all
former sherifs for years back. and
every finding against me could be
found against every former sheriff
OF Ohio county.
Il have been constantly In court
since the beginning Of my administra,
ton trying to get a basis on the set
Elements OF nearly every fund In the
ONCE. And as the audit OF my ac-
counts extended over the period OF
two years and six months. to July l..
1911. the most OF the tax commission
er's findings were at that time in the
hands OF the courts. without n decis-
ion and as soon is the supreme court
decided the points in controversy the
credits were given the different funds.
but OF course. this audit does not
show that fact.
Relative to the interest on daily
balances In bank. s460s. 62. when Mr..
Blue. the state tax commissioner. who
directed this audit was in Wheeling.
before the board OF commissioners.
about a year ago. Mr. George Woods.
a member OF the board. inquired as TO
, the interest on daily balances. and
whether or not 1t went to the county.
Mr.. Blues reply was that no action
could be taken on this matter until
an act OF the Legislature had decided
the question Therefore. there being
no law compelling me to deposit my
money I'm a bank, | did not suppose
there was any law. and do not think
SO today. that would compel me TO
pay any interest over. Regarding the
item in the audit marked excessive
! Jail fees. amounting TO s5.9ls.S5. |
I wish TO say that this is the fifteen
cents difference on the day for keep
ing each prisoner. this amount being
I in question between the board OF
/ commissioners and myself. | charg-
ing the county on my books with 90
cents per day. as every sheriff In the
state received this amount, and ] feel
: ing that this amount was not an over
; charge. and that It was not mp to the
board TO set the price and the board.
3 taking the opposite view of the same
and Offering but as cents per day,
which finally developed into a court
/ opinion. and upon the result OF the
same the board OF commissioners and
myself settled this matter on June 81
last. long before the result of the
audit was known.
The county court and myself never
made n settlement OF my accounts
with the county until June 81. 1912.
The Jail controversy prohibiting n
settlement The item s3.27069 held
against me in the audit being 10 per
+ cent of the earnings under the salary
law was never In dispute between the
board Of commissioners and myself
and as soon as the settlement was
made June 2D the county was imme-
J diately given credit upon my books for