The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1914-03-26
WITNESSES
ON THE VOUCHER
CLERK MUELLER DECLARES
THREE AFF1DANITS CAN BE
OBTAINED TO SHOW HE
DEDUCTED ITEMS.

IIeIIe, d. D.--F. ". MuSIlGT, CulcI |
clerk of the insurance department.,
has the following to say with refer
ence to State Auditor Anderson's
statement relative to the Guenther|
voucher:
"Mr. Anderson says that when the
voucher was first rendered to the
auditors office there was no eras-
ures of any kind on it and the clerk
in the auditors office notified the
clerk who rendered it that the vouch-
er would not be accepted in that
FORM Such a statement is ridicul-
GUS. What object wouldaI have to
tender for payment a voucher to an
auditors clerk who has no more au-
thority to issue a state warrant~than
a clerk in the office of the secretary
of state! l accidentally met this clerk
in the corridor and in u general
talk ] merely asked him whether it
would be wise for me to present Il
voucher to Mr.. Murphy for payment
that contained Il large number of de-
auctions. The clerk replied that
there would be no harm in it as Mr..
Murphy would know that the items
had been deducted by the insurance
department., and that it would not
be necessary to nave another voucher
made out. &
Il acted on this suggestion in Or
der to ave time and had 10 idea at
ter this conversation that Mr.. Nur-
ply would deliberately and falsely
accuse us of approving an objection
able voucher. However, events have
shown since that our faith in him waa
| r,,jsn1onpI &c bo did ,,cn IL fnr, nNli-
tical purposes claiming that his Of
flee had insisted on making the de-
ductions. With reference 10 the items
of extras at hotel and expense with
Inspections Mr.. Murphy informed
me that il Mr.. Guenther would OBJ
tain itemized receipts for these dis
bursements he would pay them in a
future voucher. He evidently at this
time did not consider them improper
items, even though | would not allow
them or approve them on the vouch-
or.
Nearly a week before this con
%vcrsation with Murphy and the au-
ditor's clerk took place, l had writ
ten a letter to Mr.. Guenther stating
that / would not approve his vouch-
err as presented. Remember this let
ter was written on February 9Th,
five days before any person in the
auditors office knew there was such
a voucher in existence. Also to fur
Their c~orroborate by statements will
say that a local bank asked me to
deposit some money for Mr. Guen-
Their and l told them that l would
not approve his voucher as it corr
tanned many personal items which ]
would not allow. This conversation
with the president and the cashier
of the bank occurred ON February 8
two days before Deputy Murphy ever
saw the voucher. Early in the fore
noon Of the 18th, a local minister
came into oTr,-pfEccs and fyil antft
nfmFthis vouthdf and he SaW-that1 1a
deductions had been fTade@ilff rcd fix
Remember this was at least -four
Isours before the voucher was pre-
scented for payment. These three out,
side parties will make affidavits tes-
tifying these statements. The youch-
or as presented by MI. Gucnther
amounted to $1,000. The objection
able items amounted to $21.25 leav-
ing a balance of $103.50. All these
Objectionable items were crossed off
III wa SoiA&AtSNG o no w GACf
a total of $109.5O, and these cor
rections we're all made and the am
cunt of the voucher reduced to
$1O9.5O before approved 1T. When
the voucher was filed in the audit
or's office on the afternoon of the
18th it called for $1O9.5O only and
Deputy Murphy issued a warrant foI
that amount within two hours from
the time the voucher was filed in hi.
office. On the afternoon of the 18th
the voucher was approved and just
before closing time that afternoon
called for the warrant. The warrant
was issued for the eXac amount fol
which it was approved and this state
ment can be verified by examining
the original voucher when it WHY be
found that the amount for which i,
was approved and warrant issued
was written in ink on the reverse
side and in my. own handwriting"