The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1914-12-10
WOULD PAY PETTY
FOR SUIT DEFENSE

An. echo OF the famous Watson
defalcation case. which slirred the
District Of Columbia early in 1908. is
a report fror, the House District
Committee today for the reimburse
nent of former Auditor Petty and his
sureties. for expenses incurred in de-
Tending an action brought by the
District in attempting to make the
then auditor liza ole for The shortcOm-
incs of the disbUrsing clerk in his
Office.
The report Of the House committee
which is a document different froE,
the customary cut-and-lried legisla-
tive brief. says that Mr.. Petty was
not in any way implicated in the
defalcations OF ]. VI. A. Watson. and
that toe courts. including the highest
court, have declined to mold MIN and
his securities liable for the shortage.
which amounted to c,Ore than $4,000
Chairman Johnson's report contains
4 review Il the legal proceedings
which followed the discovery of the
shortage of Watson. the then disburs-
ing clerk in the auditors office.
The bill Is entitled one for the relief
Of James T. Petty, Charles W. Church.
and others. executors Of Charles 3.
Church. deceased. Jesse E. Wilson. and
George T. bearing
After referring to Watsons appoint
ment in 1898 and his downfall in 1905.
the report saws. in part:
During the four and one half years
Watson was so employed he erabezzled
81. S72.47, of which S2.S0ST6 was subse-
quently recovered leaving a net short
age of S74.563.7l This shortage existed
and still exists in the following funds
from which the money was taken, viz.
miscellaneous receipts OF the United
States. on account of repayments to
the appropriation for assessment and
permit work, Sl0.G23.75; receipts Of the
District of Columbia. repayments TO
such appropriation which was payable
on the half-and-half plan. 81 .62}.75; de-
post and assessment funds of the Dis
tTict of Columbia NOW miscellaneous
trust fund deposits of the District Of
Columbia). including the wholc-cost de-
posit fund and the crossing sidewalks
deposits, s5l.556.22; permit fund of the
District of Columbia. 81. 759 %.
IL is conceded on all hands that Mr..
Petty, the auditor. was not ia any way
implicated in Watson's defalcations.
At the time this shortage was dlscov-
cred he had been auditor for fifteen
years. Previous to his appointment TO
this office he had been a subordinate
OF the auditors office for eighteen
years During these thirty-three years
he served the District faithfully and
conscientiously.
one of the features Of this litigation
which compels attention was the delay
in it's prosecution. The action was in
stituted i'm the District Supreme Court
on November .. 1903. and the final de-
cision was obtained on June 9. 1919,
more than nine and one-half years
later The case was pending in the Dis
trict Supreme Court for almost seven
years. and that upon questions OF law
arising on the pleadings.
The following facts stand out promi-
nently in the foregoing statement:
L The money was stolen by Watson
alone. He was the pay clerk OF the
District OF Columbia. recognized by the
District Commissioners and by Con-
gress rs such. He should have been
required TO give a bond TO the Disrict
of Columbia for the faithful perform
ance of his duties. The office he held
was recognized as distinct from that Of
auditor although the pay clerk was
assigned to the auditors office. Really.
the duties of this clerk. which had 10
do with the disbIrsement OF money. had
no proper place in the auditors ONCE.
2. Watson was nominated to this POSI-
ton Of trust by one of the District Com
rnissiorers, was selected as a result OF
an examination prescribed by them, and
finally received his appointment from
them. Thus. all discretion relative 10
his nomination or appointment rested
with the Commissioners and not with
Petty.
.. Mr.. Petty did not embeZZle dol
lar OF public or private funds. He re-
ceived no benefit from any Of Watson $
REGULATIONS He had nothing to Go with