Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1919-01-08
CLAIMS VOUCHERS REMOVED
CONTINUED from Page One.)


the RESPONDENT expects TO prove. Hsv-.
ing covered the history OF the work OF
the bank commissioner with view
TO showing that he had not neglected
his work and that the work OF the de-
partment did not give him time TO
DO the auditing so as TO make an ex.
pert accounting, Mr.. Plumley stated
that the vouchers have always been
in their proper places until recently;
He explained that the respondent had
ALWAYS been able 10 get the vouchers
into the files before the time for max
ING his report by urging Mr.. Graham
10 secure them. He said that the re-
spoaIaat expected to show that some
times these vouchers were not re-
turned as soon as at other times, so
itemized vouchers matched receipts
that were filed in the Office, showing
the orders had been drawn.
Attorney Plumley said that IN 1914
alI the itemiZed vouchers were on hIe
a~-no,tinr about $4,000. and later
all these came. excepting Sl0-.4o and
finally q voucher appeared for them.
In 1915, all the vouchers were in their
proper place excepting enough 10
cover $500. which sum was explain
ed as clerk hire and other expenses,
and before the report was made the
vouchers 10 cover that amount were
in their proper place. 1t was not IN
til March. 1918. said Mr.. Plumley that
Mr.. Williams attention was called TO
anything that led TO any sohcitude
relative TO the funds. He commenced
an investigation and on April u call
ed the attention of Mr.. Graham to the
matter. He promised TO secure the
vouchers 70 cover the amount, but
was called TO Washington on govern
ment business. Mr.. Williams con-
tinued further investigations and At
torney Plumley explained. wrote
three letters TO the attorney general
meanwhile continuing his invesGga-
tions.
Attorney General Barber objected
so strongly at this point that Attor-
ney Plumley did not proceed with the
outline OF the defense that the re-
spondent intended to produce.
Considerable time was occupied
by dispute between counsel
over the admission OF advancement
and advances" in evidence. The
court finally explained the term and
allowed it TO be used. So warm
waxed the discussion between the at
torneys at one time that the defence
took exceptions TO the statement of
the state, the defense claiming that
the state was characterizing the tes-
timony of the witness (Williams) as
an argument TO the jury. The court
allowed the exceptions.
Williams, himself, took the stand,
testifying as to his early life, his
training and his various kinds of
commissioner. He then tried to tell
how many savings banks there are
in the state, TO show how little time
he had for the examination of the
auditors Office He brought q new
term in to the case. namely, depart
mental vouchers" from other depart
ments. which, he said. frequently
were all he found in the files. the
same meaning receipts and not item
| lied vouchers. He testified that Mr..
| Graham sometimes was late in get
/ ting the vouchers into the files.
Mr.. Williams testified that il was
/ customary 10 allow advances 10 be
made in large sums TO some 20 or 80
! departments, including the auditor.
I highway. secretary of state, board Of
/ health. prison, medical registration,
agriculture, in fact, about every de-
partment, according TO the witness.
He explained that the sums varied
+ and that only personal receipt
which he termed as the departmental
receipt, was given when the order for
/ the money was given. Later the
/ itemized vouchers would appear and
/ be placed in the files.
He testified that he only used the
T files and the dav book the first wears
I Of his examination. but in 1912 he
I u
/ he found the itemized vouchers were
not appearing In the year 1912. all
( the itemized vouchers showed I'D. ex-
/ ceDting one for S102-75. bv july !.
1914, and that it finally appeared in
+ the Graham account.