New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-04-08
4 Continued from first page.)

~ SNAPAesAA10AO1A W OllcI WHY VII.
Wlchefski did not cash the check
inquestion. The Review does not
know either, but might it not have
been possible that he did not cash
it because it did not occur to him
that ne wanted to steal this money
from the City? The fact that a
certified check made payable to
the City of New Ulm by the New
Ulm Rural Telephone Co. was
found IN the cash drawer without a.
Forthcoming explanation from the
present incumbent of the city
clerks office receives mention. It
was deposited there before Mr..
Wicherski ever took charge of the
office. It would seem to the Re-
view that it would have been quite
as easy for the accountants to find
out from the Telephone Company
why they do not reclaim their pro-
perty as to drag it into the
report and thus befuddle the mind
minds OF the people who may not
know what this transaction is
about. Certainly it was just as
much the business of the telephone
company to get their money back
as it was for the city clerk to run
after them and ask them why they
did not reclaim their property if
they are entitled to it. 1t may
have been an act of negligence on
the part of Mr.. Wicherski or some
some official of the city, possibly
the city treasurer, not to file away
the warrent issued to Mr.. Silver
son in the sum of $3.50 on March
40, 1906, and leave it in the cash
drawer.
The only question it seems to
the Review that should be asked
in connection with this voucher is
whether or not the endorsement
that appears on the back Of it is in
the handwriting of Mr.. Silverson
and if it is the public including the
accountants have a right to as
sumo that Mr.. Silverson got the
money and if he got the money
wherein is there any defaulting on
the part of the city clerk? What
control has the city clerk over
warrants on the city treasurer
after he has issued them? The
fact that there are 300 or more
that have not been cancelled by
any banking house in the city does
not concern the city clerk. The
only thing that he is concerned in
and for which he can be held re-
sponsible so far as the Review can
see, is to issue the warrants in the
correct amounts and in the form
prescribed by the city charter. II
warrants were passed out without
| the Mayors signature, it would in
dictate carelessness on the part OF
somebody, but certainly nothing
terminal. After warrants have
been properly issued it devolvesup.
on the city treasurer to see to it
that they are cashed in a way that
lis legal and if it is illegal to have
warrants paid without being can
celled by some banking house the
blame, if any, attaches to the city
treasurer. So far as the Review
has been able to find out it is not
illegal for the treasurer to pay the
warrants direct from any money
THAT he may have on hand nor is it
illegal for him to issue a check for
any warrants that may be present.
sented to him for payment. How
the treasurer handled these war.
rants that bear no cancelling
stamp from a local bank the Re.
view is unable to state, but it
seems that it should not make
much difference so long as the city
was not thereby called upon to
pay any greater sums than the
warrants called for.
There is no dispute about leaves
torn out of a book that is being
used as one of the records in the
clerks office. When questioned
about this book, the former city
clerk told a Review reporter that
he found this book among the re-
cords of the former Superinten-
dent of the WaterWOrks & Electric
| l. L
used and that he asked Supt
Wagner if he could have it and
was given permission to use it and
that this very same book had the
very same leaves cut out that are
found missing to-day. Mr.. Wi
cherski told the Review reporter
also that Mr.. Wagner never turned
over the monthly collections to
him, but that they were turned
lover to the city treasurer. Why
] the figure 6 was chanued To a ] as