The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1915-08-03
The Search Clerk Fees.

That the Burlington county board oil
freeholders will not find it necessary to
institute suit for the recovery of $4,000
or more in seacrh fees, alleged to have
been diverted from the county treasury
by practices in the county clerks Office,
is the report among politicians here.
The report of the committee, with much
damaging evidence, was ready at the
last meeting of the freeholders, but con-
trary to expectations, was not presented. "
Last week, too late for THE News to
comment on it, the above item appeared
in Philadelphia paper, and, according
to the date line, was sent from Palmyra.
1t is peculiar fact that nearly, if not
all, of the agitation on this subject, has
emanated from Palmyra. THE News,
in its report of the last meeting of the
Board of Freeholders, said that the re-
port of the special committee to look in
to this matter was not presented owing
to the absence of the chairman of the
committee, the member from Palmyra
For this statement we were ''called
down" and an attempt was made to
show that we had made an untruthful
report. In reply to this accusation we
will say that our publication was made
on the statement of a member of the.
committee, who made the motion to let
the matter rest, and who also said that
the report was entirely completed but
was awaiting the presence of the chair
man of the committee.
Further, we will say that the commit,
tee held meeting the night before the
Board of Freeholders met, at which the
chairman was present This meeting
lasted until nearly midnight, and it was
then agreed by all, that the report
should not be presented the next day.
So far as the publication in the Phila-
delphia paper is concerned it is rather
funny, to say the least. 1t states that
the county will not be compelled to in
stitute proceedings for the recovery of
$500 fees alleged to have been di-
verted. This would lead one to the i'm
preston that for five years there has
been an average of $1,000 per year taken
that should have gone to the county and
that somebody is going to restore it
without legal proceedings, although the
newspaper says that much damaging
evidence was in possession of the COM
mittee in their report which twas ready
at the last meeting.'
Now, if the report was ready, as the
item states, then at least one member
OF the committee did not know it, for he !
said it was not ready and the Solicitor
says the same thing. If there is much
damaging evidence in it, that evidence
must be in the hands of the committee,
and the newspaper man who wrote from
Palmyra evidently got his information
from source close at hand, for after |
careful inquiry of the other members of
the committee and the Solicitor, we have
not been able to discover a word of what |
is in the report, complete or incomplete.
About the size of this matter is that |
this sudden awakening was due to the |
fact that Harry L. knight was candi-
date for reelection as County Clerk, and |
the story was started for political purposes.
The books of the former County Clerks |
will show that the annual receipts for
searches averaged about $500 per year
and they were on the fee system. If the
financial returns are correct the sums |
named have been the average for FIVE
years, SO it is hard to discover where the |
extra $4,000 per year has been received.
If there is damaging" evidence, why
does not the possessor of that informa-
ton make it public and put it before the
proper authorities? There is no necessity |
for hiding behind investigating COM
mittee or waiting for reports. If there
have been criminal acts, let the man
who knows about them come out in the
open and institute proceedings on his
own account. 1t is his duty as a public
citizen to do this. Let the people have
the whole light and let the man who
has it in his vest pocket flash it forth.