The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1913-08-13
He SAYS No Provision Was Made.
Columbia, S. c.. August

Columbia, S. c., August +, 1913
Hon. LOUIS Appeit, Manning. S. G.
J Dear Sir:-My attention has beer
called TO the editorial entitled 'Picay
unishness' in YOUR paper Of July 3Oth
IN writing this editorial, you laborec
under a mistake in suppoSing that the
Legislature had made any approprla'
tion for the entertainment OF the Attor'
neys General visiting South Carolina
Neither did the Legislature or the State
of South Carolina invite them to meet
in Charleston. The invitation was a
personal courtesy extended by former
Attorney General on his individual re-
sporsihlity. doubtless without any idea
that he was binding tie State to make
an appropriation for the expenses OF
the Convention.
The Legislature made no reference
whatever TO the entertainment Of this
Convention, and the matter was prob
ably never mentioned Or discussed dur
ing their sessions The only appropria-
ticn which The legislature made with
reference TO the Convention was one
which has been Included in the appro-
priation Act for several years, and
which reads as follows:
That out OF tn appropriation in
item six, for the expenses Of litigation,
the Attorney General is allowed to use
as much as 5000 to pay his actual eX-
penses in attending the Convention Of
Attorneys General Of the different
States Annually"
You criticize the Comptroller Gener-
al for assuming to be the guardian of
the treasury. Section I51 Of the Code OF
Laws Of this State requires the Comp
troller General to draw ali warrants for
the payment OF moneys appropriated by
the Legislature, and see that the vouch.
ers therefor are filed in his Office. This
duty imposed upon him requires him to
pass upon the vouchers and see whether
or not the disbursement is for the pur-
pose authorized by the Legislature, and
as long as am entrusted by the people
with this Office. I shall never allow
money appropriated for one purpose to
be applied to another. The diversion
of pubic funds appropriated for one
purpose to another. by either State or
County officials, is a violation OF the
Criminal Code of this State,-Sec. 532.
The object of having the disbursement
of funds made upon warrants of the
Comptroller General with vouchers FL
ed in his Office. is to prevent such diver
sion. Whether or not the General AS
sembly should have made an approprla-
ton for the Attorneys General is mat
ter for them to decide, not for ne. But
until such an appropriation is made by
them, I am not authorized to draw a
warrant for that purpose.
Your opinion that my action was
"Picayunish" may have been induced
by my refusal so pay your claim. S66,
for publishing election notices. You
counted each punctuation mark as a
word: when the charge for punctuation
was eliminated. your claim was reduc-
ed to s53 81. This reduction was not
due to ''Picayunishness" on the part Of
the Comptroller General, but entirely
to the law. Even ii you regard IL as
picayunish, it would involve ar cApeu-
diture OF over 81, 200 of the taxpayers
money for punctuation in the ADVERTISE
ments of notices of election.
l did not question the character of
the entertainment furnished the Attor-
nevs General, or consider whether or
not it was eXtravagart or proper. In
refusing to issue the warrant, l merely
followed the law limiting the eXpendi-
ture 10 the Actual expenses of the At
torney General in attending the Con-
vention."
would be glad to have you give this
letter the same publicity which YOU
gave your editorial.
Yours truly.
A. W JONES.
Comptroller General.