The Penn's Grove record., 1913-10-31
The PENIS Grove Record
SHOULD The COLLECTORS TAX TANGLE
BE FORGOTTEN?
The Moral Duty of Upper Penns Neck
Township Voters

line moral DUTY OF upper FenhS Neck
Township Voters
The Committee of Upper Penns Neck
Township in 1910 believed there was
something wrong with the accounts of
the Collector, John M. Bevis, because
they found, according to the amount
of money he reported, there was less
than they expected. An auditor was
employed to go over his accounts. 1t
was found that he had charged him
self in 1909 with So, 700. go, which was
$l39. so less than the amount of the du-
plicate which the auditor found to be
1890. IL. In 1910 he charge himself
with So, 569. 46. The auditor found
So, 752.I6, OF $IS3.70 more.
The receipts and expenditures for
the year ending 1910, published in the
Penns Grove RECORD showed a balance
due the Township of $780, S. The
auditor, besides found the above dis
crepencles found other minor ones and
made the balance due tile Townehip
$580,60, January l., 1911. BY employ
ing an auditor for $50, Committeeman
Joseph E. Clark and Joseph Lloyd
believed they saved the Township tax
payers $3.50. 81, which otherwise the
collector, John NJ. Bevis, would have
kept.
II the differences were mistakes of
judgment from lack of knowledge,
Mr.. Bevis is not capable of properly
administering the office. If they were
Intentional they were criminal for
which the law provides punishment.
Has not collectors served terms i'll
prison for similar malfeasance in office?
After a settlement was made with
the committee as far as the auditor
went, Nov. 2, I9lI, showing a balance
due the Township of $23I.47, MI.
Bevis persisted i'll going back and hav
ing accounts credited later for which
he has been given credit. The contrO-
versy continued after the settlement
for the year 1911.
On January 10, 1912, he had publish
ed Ill the PENNs GROVE RECORD over
his name with affidavit as TO It's truth
fulness a statement of the Township
accounts showing a balance due him
OF S72.24, and a note of 5000 in the
bank to be paid from the $I273. 05 taxes
to be collected. The following week
the statement approved by the Com
mlttee was published by the Clerk.
showing the balance due the Township
to be $7S9.0S, after all taxes were col.
lected. We allowed MI. Beyis to pub
lish an explanation OF the difference.
OF Slo9.O7 Ill the accounts, giving a.
mounts which he claimed had not been
credit within the auditors account.
Ihe auditors statement sheet showed
that he had been credited with accounts
he wanted credited again. Tie bal
ance OF $7o9.0o published in the Clerks
statement, was carried forward as the
balance with which the statement. for
1917, vas begun and settled, thus show.
Ing thai Mr.. Bevis' statement. also his
explanation to the Taxpayers were not
true.
These figures show that in taking an
afldaVit 10 his &C count Oh which he
lays stress as 10 his correctness, he com.
mltteed perjury for which the law pro
Vldes Il term Ill prison.
MI. Bevis has been a very extensive
collector. The last year Josiah Sum-
merrill was collector in 1904 hi, fees
calculated according TO law were
Sl23.l6, which included $40 fee for act.
ing as treasurer and also handlino
school money. In Mr.. Bevis' first veal
as collector 1905, lie charged $50 and
SlU iOr treasurer, total $I6J. In 1907
lit WAS hot satisfied Will $l60 20 hand
I'd III a bill tor $3S.40 extra for han.
ding school money. Each year since
liz has charged extra for handliuo
school money. In 1911 he WAS poI
satisfied with $50 for acting as treasurer
80 lie charged $50. In 1912 his salary
was Sl5O for collector; $2O.U % for treas.
urer and $53. 70 for legal tee 8 for handling
sciloOl money, total, 1929. 70. When a
collector Is pad IA salary as the $3.50 is
not according TO legal fees, it usually
lakes Inc place OF all other fees. MI
devils wants a salary where The fees are
less, and fees where it would be more.
LII The last twenty-five years either
as committeeman or collector he has
managed TO get more money from the
township Than any other. This can
De verified by referring to tie published
statements.
Has he not played the game of poll
tics ny coJolery Or browbealing to per-
iectiol as a bipartisan political boss TO
MS own personal benefit ? Has he not
heiped TO nominate Democrats and
later defeat them? Has lie not helped
defeat every committeeman who en-.
deaVored to protect the tax payers
against his exploits?
We allowed him to publish his State.
ment, OF side of the controversy with
the Committee, but he has refused to
pay for it as he promised to do.
Can his word lie depended upon ?
does ms oath amount TO anything !?
When a man is crafty and cunning
Ill private should he be entrusted with
Office When a man has BETRAYED his
trust, when a man has to have viei-
lance committee to constantly watch to
see that he does no wrong, should he
longer be trusted Z When The handInp
OF other peoples money become a temp.
tation to do wrong should he be longer
entrusted? Is it not the civic duly of
voters to see that open, frank and
homes mel are elected to handle
moneys not their own?
Is it not the moral duty of voters to
refuse to vote for a man when they
believe the position of handling other
peoples money is a great temptation
to do wrong?
Should not the voters in Upper Penns
Neck Township re read and think over
these statements DefOIe voting next
Tuesday =?