Year: 1876

lie was OF tHe opinion tHut tIle ices were
not uniform in all cases. The witness had
sent some Of the bills to the insurance
companies, but did not recollect the
amounts OF the fees charged. As rule,
the Auditor sent the bills himself.


A conference with the counsel for the
respondent being desired by the managers
in relation 10 certain information which
the managers expected to get from the
Auditor respecting the fees obtained from
foreign insurance companies, the counsel
for the respondent agreed that il cor.
rect statement OF such fees was presented
by the managers, they (the counsel) would
cOncedc its correctness without other
proof being required:


Recess was then taken until 2P.M.


AFTERNOON.


Manager Stuart stated that in order to
facilitate the progress OF the trial the
counsel on both sides had agreed that
certain facts in relation to insurance fees
should be received as evidence without
controversy, thus avoiding the summon
ing OF many witnesses.


A list OF fees paid to the Auditor by
certain insurance companies therein
named was presented by Manager Stuart
and read by the Clerk, and filed among
the documents in evidence. 1t was nm
enumeration OF the fees received by the
Auditor under the retaliutOry law and
appropriated to his own use.


Manager Stuart also submitted to the
counsel for the respondent what is known
us the Blue Book for 1874, and obtained
their consent to recognize it as the law OF
the States referred to therein on the sub
ject OF insurance.


The managers then announced that,
reserving the right to recall any witness
to explain his testimony in case the
printed report Of the same should be
deemed incorrect, they had nothing fur
ther to offer in the way Of testimony.


After delay Of some fifteen minutes,
the counsel for the respondent, Mr.. Ar
nett, opened the case for the defense; say-
ing:


We shall in brief way indicate the
line OF defense which we shall adopt.
The articles are eight in number. The
counsel here reiterated the charges pre-
ierred therein, which are familiar to all
our readers.


As to the first article, we would be lead
to believe that the Auditor had failed,
refused or neglected to pake the semi
annual reports us required by law, by
which it is meant, we presume, to show
that the respondent failed TO report the
fees received by him from the insurance
companies, and also that he failed to
make any report Of the manner in which
these fees we're disbursed. The law evil
IDENTIFY contemplatcs only those fees which
90 into the treasury, and not those fees
or moneys which constitute the perqui.
sites Of the office. The Auditor under
the law OF this State received fixed sal
ary OF $4,000, and the law specifies such
fees as shall go into the Treasury.


All OF the executive officers 80 inter-
preted the law as we have construed it,
otherwise the Auditor would have had
10 report the amounts expended for his
bread and meat. The Constitution pro-
vides that the Auditor shall receive n
salary out OF the Treasury and no other
sum shall be paid him out OF the Treas
ury, but it did not provide that he should
receive no compensation from other sour
ccs. He came TO the conclusion from the
reading Of the law that owing to the cx-
ira duties imposed by this retaliatory
law; that no was entitled TO receive the
fees provided by the law as his reward for
these services. 1t was understood at the
time, il not by the Legislature, at least
in private circles, that the intent OF the
law was that the fees were to be for the
compensation OF the Auditor for the
onerous and extraordinary services i'm
posed upon him by the provisions of this
law. This view OF the law on the part OF
the Auditor was sustained by the law
officer Of the State. But admitting there
was n mistake, it cannot be denied that it
was mistake that could be honestly
made. There is method OF recovering
the money; which is by civil suit and not
in the form OF impeachment against an
officer who was honest in his intcrpreta.
ton Of the law.


As to the charge concerning the 5000
transaction on account OF the B. & o. r.
K. check, we assume that it was in no
way IN official act, he was but the agent
Of the B. & o. r. r. The money was not
deposited in the bank ut wheeling for the
purpose Of paying the taxes due by the
road It was uicarl II adraft on their gener.
nj funds kept in this bank. Beside this,
II was an act committed in former term
OF office before the enactment Of the law
now in force and could therefore in no
wise be an ofEense under this law.


The charge Of extortion in the 4th arti-
Gle arose from the retaliatory law which
contemplated that the people should be
protected from the swindling insurance
companies, and from discrimination
against their own companies made. by
other States. In the performance ot this
duty he was compelled to- make these
charges.


As to neglect Of duty in falling to issue
certificates TO the La Belle and Common
wealth Insurance Companies, c il is matter
to be commended. These companies
failed to make the proper statements, and
| it was in fulfilment OF the duties Of
his Office to Withhold the certificates until
the companies had provided him with the
statement required by law. Veal know
what became OF those insurance compan.
les. They wero sold out by the Sheriff
OF Ohio county, for very insignificant
sums.


As to the transaction with the First
National Bank OF Charleston, it was only
as an individual, mot at all in any man.
ner official. Tho Auditor disclaimed any
power to cSntrol State funds. He only
claimed that as 40 indiyidualhe could In
Auencc parties who had monies 70 deposit
to the credit OF the State.


As to the charge OF conspiracy there
was nc. evidence brought forward to sus.
tain it, He then considered the charge
embraced in the withdrawal OF the 81, 100
from the First National Bank Of Wheel.
ing and rChearsed in general the testimony
Of Mr.. Adams and argued that the Audi.
tor exhibited commGndable industry and
vigilance In Rscertaining the status Of