University of South Carolina Libraries
: The Abbeville Press arfSillif ? - 1 *?= ' j i ^ BY HUGH WILSON. ' ABBEVILLE, S. C., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1888. ^ / - VOLUME XXXHLNO. The State of South Carolina, County of Abbeville. General SessiofrST" To his Honor W. H. Wallace, 1'residing Judge. June Term, 1SS&: The Grand Jury respectfully submit the following presentment: That at the February Term of this Court the Grand Jury appointed a subcommittee consisting of W. H. Frazier, G. A. Visanska, S. W. Cochran, and T. W. Morton to examine into the public offices: That this sub-committee were authorized to employ an expert to assist them in this work. Mr. R.. FL Mill was select ed to perform this duty and has done so in a very efficient manner. The report of this expert embodied in the report of the sub-committee of the Grand Jury is herewith submitted, marked Exhibit A. While this report discloses irregulari- i ties in the various,county offices therein : specified, we aro satisfied that th9ro has I been no intentional neglect of duty in I any of tbe officers, and jyhile wo call the attention of the public to them it is for l the purpose of preventing a repetition of i the offences. i We think that no county in the State i haa geuerally a more efficient set of offioers and we think that the errors into i which they have fallen are due more to I bad precedents and wrong constructions i of the Statutes than to wilful disregard of I their public duties and intentional crook- | edness. We recommend-that in all cases where the offloers have received money without - accounting therefor or wfere they hava been twice paid for the"same services they be required to refund the same. WheiP their error has been occasioned by misinterpretation of the law, especially where their construction thereof has been sanctioned by the officers appointed to pass upon the same, we recommend that no proceedings be instituted to re-open the same. We find upon examination of the books of the Trial Justices that they are in the main correctly kept, but we desire to place the seal of our disapproval upon their sending up so many trivial cases thus involving the county in needless expense. We have, been unable to discover any valid reason why one William Williams, charged with larceny, has been kept a prisoner in the county jail for nine months without being brought to trial. When his case came before us for investigation the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain a true bill. We recommend that the County Commissioners see that the provisions of the drainage laws be complied with as they -are required to do by Section J.181 G. S. We recommend that R. E. Hill be paid the sum of One Hundred and Twentyfive Dollars for his services as assistant to the subcommittee of the Grand Jury. The report of the County Commissioners is herewith submitted marked "Exhibit B." We find that the jury rooms are in bad condition and would call the attention of the County Commissioners to the fact. Respectfully submitted, W. H. FRAZIER, Foreman. 1 EXHIAIT A. As a committee of your number appointed at the last term of the Court J to investigate the several public offices of the Connty, we would respectfully make 1 report as follows: Being authorized by the resolution by ' which we were appointed to employ an expert to assist us in the investigation, if deemed necessary, we would here state ( that we employed Mr. P.. E. Hill, who on ( account of his familiarity with the duties ' of the various county offices, we regard- . ed as a most fit and proper person for 1 such an undertaking. To him we refer- ! red the whole matter, subject to our su- 1 pervision. * Wo hfitran the work with which we were charged in The Office of Probate Judge. The books and papers of this office we < fonnd to be neatly and systematically kept, showing the imprint of the business | capacity not alone of the present incum- ; bent, but likewise of some of his predecessors. So far as discharging the duties of the offioe goes we believe the incum- i bent has complied with all the require- i inents of the law. ] But while he has done this, we are of : the opinion that he has not stopped there, but has gone on and done some things which the law does not require?things for which we do not think he has any authority of law whatever. For instance, i lO tjauu UUU BVBIJ pisuu tu nuum Iiv grants letters Testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship be gives a certificate setting forth the fact that they are such qualified Executor, Administrator or Guardian, as the case may be, and ^ charges fifty cents for the same?this in addition to the regular and legitimate charges for said letters. We can readily see the necessity for such a certificate, should the party have occasion to transact some business pertaining to his trust beyond tho limits of his State or County, such, lor instance, as disposing of real estate, sueing for the recovery of debts, <fcc., but we can see no earthly necessity for such a certificate until such emergency arises, and which, in many cases, never does arise. As well might the Secretary of State, when he commissions an officer, give to him, in addition to his commission a certificate that he is such commissioned officer, and charge fifty cents or a dollar for * the same. Then again, when these Executors, Administrators and Guardians make their nnnnnl rflturns. ho erives to each n certificate to the effect that he or she lias made such annual return, and for this certificate charges fifty cents. And in the case of a Guardian, it is not always confined to one certificate, but should the party be Guardian for half a dozen wards, &Dd though the receipts and expenditures for each may be identically the same, it is * ' fifty cents for each. The reason given by Dim for giving these certificates of annual returns, as he could not point us to any law requiring it, was thatthey served as a protection to the parties, as evidencing the fact that they had made their annual returns. But this we regarded as of little force, knowing or believing as wo do, that the best evidence of such a return having been made would be the return itself, and the record thereof, both of which he is required by law to keep on file in his office. If then we are correct in our view of this matter?if the Probate Judge has no right to issue such certificates and charge for them, unless said certificates are applied for,?the amouut of such illegal charges made by this ofcer since he has been in office will aggregate not less than one thousand dollars. The Master's Office. The affairs of this office seem to b? well administered and a very satisfactory showmg was made by the incumbent thereof as to the status of the several estates in his hands as not yet fully settled. We examined his bank account and found that he had to his credit officially, in amonnt equal to the aggregate sum of rill the balances in his hands due the sev3ral estates as aforesaid. We suggested what we thought would be an improvement in the manner of keeping his cash book, in which he concurred with us, and intends when he orders another book for ;his purpose to have it ruled off as sug jested. The Auditor's Oflloo. The County is to be congratulated on laving so zealous and so etiicieut an ofli- ( jer as is the incumbcnt of this office. It s .largely duo to his persoverance, and ;hat too in the face of the most persistent ( opposition, (much of which being on the { part of some high in authority) that an j imount approximating the sum of fif- , ;ecn hundred dollars has been turned in;o the County Treasury. We say this be- , sause it was through his instrumentality n a large degree, auu on acuumn ui wi- , ain facts long since forgotten but by him ( resurrected, that this investigation was >rdered, which has resulted, already, In ( he recovery of the above mentioned sum ( money, after the same had been lost sight of for years?but of this we speak more fully elsewhere in this report. , Hie aggregate value of the real and ( personal property of the County, as , stored on the tax duplicates, has been greatly increased since be has been in | ;his office; and the duplicates are neatly , ind correctly mado up. We have only j )ne fact to allude to in connection with , ;he conduct of this official, wherein we | ;hink ho erred?and that is in the matter )f the last annual settlement with the j bounty Treasurer. In that settlement, , vhich was for the fiscal year beginning , >n the 1st day of November 1885 and endng on the 31st day of October 1886, he alowed the Treasurer credit for some fif,een or sixteSh hundred dollars for school l ;laims which originated alter the close of ;he fiscal year for which the settlement < ,vas being made. This of course, will remit in no pecuniary loss either to the i bounty or school lund, but serves to con- i Tuse matters by mixing one year's trans ictions with that of another. * The Sheriff's Office. Sub Division 7 of Section G22 General Statutes, states that all costs in criminal proceedings shall be paid by the County tfhereinjthe offence shall have been com- < nitted?notwithstanding this the Sheriff aas repeatedly collected costs from < \bbeville County when the same should i nave been paid by other Counties, i He has, at least in one instance, ;ollected costs lor services ren- j iered another County from said other bounty, and afterwards collected the same from Abbeville County. This was in the case of a party who committed i ?ome offence in York County and fled to ibis County where he was arrested. The :osts in this case amouuf.ing to $18.55, was paid by the County of York and was ilso included in the Sheriff's account igainst this County, aud paid again. He has also, in more than one instance, jollected costs from both the County and Defendant in the same case. (See case of the State vs. Tom Williams and others, < also County vs. G. L. and S. Rail Road.) But the matter to which we would now call attention wo regard as of ; much more importance than anything to which wo have heretofore alluded, and that is his construction of the fee bill in the matter of the Sheriffs costs for serving papers issued by a Trial Justice. "" i Section 1 of an act entitled "An act i to amfintl Sections 2437 and 2438 of the General Statutes of the State, relating to the costs of Sheriff's and Constables" : passed at the regular Session of 1882, Provides that Sheriffs and their Deputies, executing papers issued by a Trial Justice, shall be paid the same fees as are allowed Constables for the same work. Then Section 2 ol the same act, under the head of pay of Constables, provides that for serviug warrants in criminal cases, Constables shall bo paid one dollar for each person named in the warraut, except in case of witnesses, besides 5 cents a mile for each mile traveled; and for serving warrants for witnesses it. criminal cases they shall be paid one dollar for all the persons named in the war- ??* hoDl/loo miloooro Tim nhvinns nnrt unmistakable meaning of this is that in the case of the arrest of a person or persons charged with a crime, the SherilF or his Deputy acting as a Constable for a Trial Justice, is to reccive one dollar for each person named in the warrant, besides mileage, but in the case of a warrant for witnesses, ho is to receive only one dollar for all the persons named therein besides mileage in each case. But in the face of this plain provision of law we find that in every instance where he or his Deputy has acted as a Constable for a Trial Justice, in servit g a warrant for witnesses In criminal cases, he has charged one dollar for each person named in the warrant, in addition to mileage, instead of one dollar for all the persons named therein. * A To show the result of his construction of the fee bill and that it would be ruinous to the Tax payers if generally adopted, it is only necessary to cite a few specimen cases as taken from his accounts. For summoning the witnesses <fec., in the case of the State vs. J. C. Ferguson his costs amounted to over six hundred dollars. In the case of the State vs. Ellis and Ellis charged with breach of trust with fraudulent intent, and which was dismissed after being investigated becanse there was nothing in it, his costs amonnted to over cue hundred and fifty dollars,?at least seventy-five dollars more than the law allows according to our construction of the fee bill. Wo hot to nvam!noH Viia arwnnnfq fnr thfl last several years and find that the average of such over charges will not fall very much short of, if it does not fully reach the sum of Three hundred dollars a year. This for a period of eight or ten years, the length of time he has beon in office, will aggregate from twenty-live hundred to three thousand dollars. Wo also lind that it is his practice to charge 82 for the attendance of his Deputy at the trial of the prisoners fur whose arrest he is paid so liberally. For this we can lind no authority whatever. The amount of such illegal charges, as we regard them, will average at least fifty dollars a year since he has beon in office. We are also clearly of the opinion that he misconstrues the law in the matter of mileage. The law is that he shall receive m>nt? a mllA ?nr pno.h mile necessarily traveled in serving a warrant or other paper. But instead of this, il' ho has a warrant for a witness who lives in Pickens or Oconee for instance, say sixty miles from here, he charges ?6 for mileage, although he may simply write to the party and notify him that ho must appear at a certain time as a witness in a certain caso. This is one reason why his costs in the Fergu- . son case arnouuted to so much. He was paid seven or eight dollars at each trial of that caso for notifying Rov. J. R. Riley to appear as a witness in the case, or for sending him a blank recognizance to be signed by him for his appearance. "We also find that he frequently charges i the County for defraying the travelling , stnfliuBs of State's witnesses, when said witnesses are allowed mileage for that very purpose. For instance be charged the County ?3.50 for hire of conveyance 1 for Joseph McCanty, a State's witness in the case of State ys. Wm. McNeill. (We would state just here that the party who ' brought McCanty to the Court informed ' as that he was paid $1.50 by the Sheriff 1 for that service instead of $3.60.) He ' *lso frequently charges the County with ; the Rail Road fare and hotel bill of his Deputy in serving warrants for witnesses in addition to the-charges under the head 1 af mileage. For this thore is no authori- 1 ty of law. Tlie Clerk's Office. Section 740 of General Statutes requires the Clerk, immediately after the adjourn- i ment of each term of the Court, to make out a roil oi me jurors uuu i/uusutuica who shall have attended the same, with , the amount due each one, and enter the i same on the Journal, and forthwith trans- i ufit to the County Commissioners a certified copy of the same. The County Commissioners informed us that he had never made any such reports. i Section 756 of Revised Statutes also makes it his duty to make to said Commissioners on the last day of October of Bach year, an account upon oath of all i fines and forfeitures inflicted by the Court during the proceeding year, and of the amounts had and received by him, md of the manner in which said fines i were disposed of. This likewise he has , failed to do. In addition to the last mentioned report which he is to make to the County Commissioners, he is required to make on tlie first Wednesday in each month or within ten days thereafter, a report in writing to the Auditor of all moneys col- ( lected on account of licenses, fiucs, penalties, and forfeitures during the past i month. (See Section 759 Revised Statutes.) We have to report that in this par ticular he has not complied with the law. ; Section 732 Revised Statutes prescribes the books to be kept and used by the Clerk. Among the list is a book designated a book of "Fines and Forfeitures" , in which shall be entered the names of , all persons fined by the Court or whose recognizance may be estreated, showing the cause of fine, when fined, amount of ; fine, when collected, why not collected, , when paid over, to whom paid &c. He , 'nformed us that he had never kept any such book as he saw no use for it. We do not view it in that light as we regard this a3 a most important book; and on account of the failure on his part to keep anM? a hnofc it is Out Of tllG Question for any one, (except perhaps himself,) to tell what amount of money has been collected by him from those several sources for any one year or for the whole time since he has been in office. He is also required by law to keep another book in which ho shall enter all ( moneys received by him from Trial Justices arising from the sale of unclaimed j estrays. For this book he likewise | thinks there is no use and therefore does < not keep it. Although he admits he has collected ' money irom iriai jushcos on aauuia ui the sale of such estrays, there is nothing of record in his cfflce to show such a fact, nor any evidence of tho disposition made : of such money. We have examined a number of his accounts against tho couuty for the last several years, and while in the main they are mado out according to tho fee-bill, we discovered in those we examined, some instances wherein he charged costs to which we don't think him entitled. For instance he is allowed so much for dock eting a case, filing papers, trial of case( ] Ac.; and in addition thereto, to $3 for the! verdict. In every instance whore there j is a mistrial, he charges in addition to all the other costs to which he is entitled, the1 ?3 allowed for the verdict, when roallyj there has been no verdict; so that it is1 possible for him to get twelve or fifteen | dollars for verdiots in the one case, as V. happened in the case of the State vs. J. C. Ferguson, when there is but one verdict rendered. We also discovered where he had made out duplicate charges for the same seryi?e; and in one or two instances where he had collected costs from the County when the same had been paid by the Defendants. Of course this was an oversight or mistake on his part, and he has promised to refund the amount involved, some fifteen or sixteen dollars, to the County. We are clearly of the opinion that the law contemplates that in the case of each and every conviction in the Court of Ses sions mere snail ue eniereu up juuguieui for the costs, &c., against the Defendants and an execution issued for the same; and in those cases where fines are imposed the amount of such fine, together with all the costs in the case, shall be set forth in said execution and the same entered in the execution book of the Sheriff. Then when such fine, costs, Ac., are paid, the same should be turned over to the Sheriff with which he should charge himself on his execution book, and when the amount of the fine which goes to the County, is paid over to the County Treasurer his receipt for the same should be taken on the execution book, as well as the receipt from the several persons to whom the costs belong. * As matters are now conducted there is nothing of record, at least of a permanent character, to show whether a defendant who may be fined ever pays such fine or not. In such cases the Clerk usually gets from the Sheriff and Trial Justice the amount of their respective costs (this frequently during the hours of Court), adds the amount, together with his own costs, to that of the fine and gives to the party a receipt for the aggregate amount?intending at his leisure, or when the Court adjourns to make a proper disposal of the matter; but in the rush of business it i8 possible for the whole transaction to escape his memory and be entirely lost sight of. Only in this way can we account tor the fact that he has collected costs from the uounty ana me ue'enumu iu wie eaiuo case. The School Commissioners Office. \ Section 1019 of the Revised Statutes requires that all pay certificates of Teachers in the public schools shall besigned by at least two of the school trustees of the 3chool district wherein the service is rendered, and the correctness and legality of the same sworn to by the person presenting such claim, before it shall be approved by the School Commissioner. He is also required by A. A. No. 561, approved December 26,1884, to affix his seal of office to all such claims after approving the same. In neither of these particulars has the law been fully complied with, as very few of the claims are sworn to at all; many of them are signed by only one Imofno ond not: nn? in A hundred of them have the seal of office affixed?thus leaving a gap for fraud. It being made the duty of the Grand Jury to report any discrepancy between the anuual reports made to the Court by the various officers required to make such reports, we would call attention to the very great discrepancy in the matter of the reports of the County Treasurer and the School Commissioner for the last year. In many instances the Treasurer reports having paid amounts to teachers far in excess of that reported by the School Commissioner as having been approved by him for the same teachers. Were the facts reversed it would not seem strange, as the conclusion would be that all the approved claims had not been presented for payment; but it seems unnatural and unaccountable that the Treasurer should report as having paid more claims than the School Commissioner reports as having drawn. Tho first and most natural impression which such a state of affairs creates is that thore have * ? i -1-: ?1^A ueeil iniuuuiuiiL uiuima jirtiu iv ?mjv> extent of the difference in the two reports. While this is the natural and legitimate conclusion to which to come, and while we believe in all probability there have been some such fraudulent claims paid within the last Ave years (aa the discrepancy in the reports of these two officers for these years aggregate more than five thousand dollars), still we are satisfied that said discrepancy is to a great extent, due to the fact that the Commissioner often approves claims and then forgets or neglects to enter the same in his books. The Grand Jury is also required to note what may seem extravagance in the disbursement of public funds. In this connection we would mention the fact that the avorage amount paid by the School Commissioner for the last four years, in the matter of advertising aione, reacnes two hundred and eighty-five dollars a year or over eleven hundred dollars lor the four years. We would also call attention to the fact that we find that Ex-School Commissionor Hodges was paid for the two years in which he was in office, the sum of ?1,359 as salary, when according to law he should have received not exceeding 51,200. Comity Commissioners Office. In our report of the conduct of the present Board of Commissioners we would call attention to tho following facts: 1st. That thoy have approved claims for the Clerk, Sheriff and Trial Justices which were not made out and sworn to as the law directs. 2nd. That they have approved claims for amounts largely in oxcessof what the law allows. 3rd. That they have approved claims for services which wore never rendered. : 4th. That they have approved claims in duplicate for the same services. 5th. That they have violated the law in that they have drawn their drafts in the payment of claims against the county before receiving the monthly report of the County Treasurer. Gth. That they have failed in many instances to cancel claims against the coun* ' jty after having drawn their checks for the payment of the same, which they are required by law to do. 7th. That they have approved claims for the Sheriff for services rendered other counties in criminal matters, when the law provides that all such claims "shall be paid by the county wherein the offence shall have been committed." The law requires that before they shall audit or allow any claim against the County, such claim shall be made out in items with an affidavit attached that the same is correct, and that the services and aud disbursements for which pay is claimed have been done, made, rendered, or are due in fact, and tftat no pare or tne same has been paid, <fcc. And the Clerk, Sheriff and Trial Jnstices shall declare further on oath that the costs in such cases have not b9en paid by the defendants and that the defendants are unable to pay costs?also that said officers have paid over to the County Treasurer all fines and penalties heretofore collected by them. Notwithstanding this, it is a fact that in scarcely a single instance have they required persons having claims against the County to comply with the law in these particulars. Had they done so, and especially had they required the Clerk, Sheriff and Trial Justices to make out and swear to their accounts as the law directs?and had they required Trial Justices in every instance to exhibit the original papers in which costs accrued, as the law also directs?we are satisfied there would have been a great saving to the County, as it is an admitted fact on the part of pome of said Trial justices that they have been paid for servicej which they never rendered. By Section 024 of the General Statutes the County Commissioners are required, as soon as they draw a check for the payment of any claim, to cancel such claim and file the same as a voucher f&r their draft. Although such is the law it is a fact that there are now In their office jury and witness tickets representing thousands of dollars, for which drafts have been given to the County Treasurer, that have never been cancelled. * As all such claims are payable to the bearer it is possible for any one, having access to the County Commissioner's office, and who might be so disposed, to abstract one or more of such claims; collect the money thereon from the Treasurer . and he in turn surrender the same again to the Commissioners and get a chcck covering the amount?without either the Treasurer or County Commissioners being aware of the fraud. Thus the same claims might be made to do duty several times. As a fact tending to create the impression that the like haa been done, we would state that among a batch of such claims for which a check was given to the Treasurer, and which purports to be on account or tiie uourt expenses 01 1882, we found a number of jury and witness tickets for the years 1878-80 and '81. It is of infinitely more importance to the County that such claimp as these be cancellcd than in the case of ordinary claims, for the reason that tfcey are payable to the holder on presentation, whereas an ordinary claim is payable only on the check of the Commissioners and therefore would be worthless to any one who might purloin the same. Section 626 General Statutes, prohibits the Commissioners from drawing any - - ? i?-- ^ * ? m CneCK on U1U UUUUty lruwurcr unui or tor he shall have made bis monthly reports to them. As a matter of fact the Treasurer has never made any such reports in the manner prescribed by law. In our investigation of the books of this office we discovered under the head of Court expenses, that since 1881 there has been drawn from the county treasury, in the aggregate, the sum of $368.50 in the namos of Tony Hamilton, Tom Brown, Henry Adams, Tom McKinny and Henry Chalmers, all colored persons for serving as constables in attendance upon the Court. From the testimony of certain habitues of the Court we learned that these persons had never acted in the capacity claimed. We then examined said colored persons in regard to the affair, and to our utter astonishment they claimed to nave no Knowledge ox me matter whatever; that they had never acted as constable and were never paid a cent on account of any such service. On further enquiry we gathered from them that while in the employ of Sheriff DuPre, as farm hands, they had occasionally, during the sessions of the Court, carried water up into the Court room in the morning's before Court was called, but for which they wore never paid any- ; thing more thau their regular wages as farm hands. i The County Treasurer's Office. We llnd that the County Treasurer has not made the reports to the County 1 Commissioners on the 1st and 15tli of each month, as he is required to do by Sec. 273 of the Revised Statutes; l"i V>oo nnt morfn a rnnnrt on tllfi ' lUttb uo uao nv/L u?mwv ? ??r- ?? 15th of each month to the School Commissioner of the amount of collections and disbursements on account of poll tax and other school funds, as he is required to do by Sec. 1022 of the Revised Statutes; That he has paid school claims which ' were signed by only one member of the ' Board of Trustees and in some instances ! without the approval of the School Commissioner, in violation of Sec. 1023 of the 1 Revised Statutes; That he has paid claims against the county bofore the same were approved by the County Commissioners ana aiso upon orders other than the regular checks of said Commissioners, in violation of Sections 024 and G2G of the Revised Statutes; That he collected Bome 31,500 for and on account of the county and school fund on the 8th day of June, 1880, with which he failed to charge himself on his books or to account for until since this investigation was begun. Sec. 1019 of the Revised Statutes re-j quires that all claims against the school ( ... .j v-ii,' fond must be sworn to by the claimant, and signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees, before the same shall be approved by the School Commissioner; and Sec. 1023 of the same prohibits the Treasurer from paying any school claim unless so made out. * Although such is the law it is nevertheless a fact that a great many of the school claims paid by him have not been aworn to at all, and perhaps a majority of them have been signed by only one member of the Board of Trustees. Wo find that it is a common practice with him to pay claims on what are termed informal orders which are drawn by the Clerk of the County Commissioners in the absence of the Board and befpre the olaims cn which said orders are based have ever been passed upon by the Commissioners. We bare found where quite a number of claims were paid, on such informal orders,' in the latter part of May or first ol June, out of the May collection of taxes, when the original claims for the payment of which these informal orders were drawn, were not approved by the Com-, missioners until the following September. Thus it will be seen, tbo Treasurer violated the law in this transaction (and lie does so in every such transaction) in two particulars. First, iu that be paid claims against the County before the same were audited by the County Commissioners ; and second, in that he paid such claims other than upon the check of said Commissioners. In every such transaction of course the County Commission 3ra are as much to blame for drawing orders in this irregular way, or for suffering their Clerk to do so, as is the Treasurer for paying them. to the fact of bis having collected some $1,500 on account of the county and school fund in 1880, and with which he failed to charge l^imself or to make any accounting until recently, we would Btate that in 1878 the State authorities, anticipating that bills of the Bank of the State wonld in certain cases be tendered for taxes for that year, instructed the several County Treasurers of the State not to receipt for the same should they be so tendered, but to count them and seal th8m up in a package, where they were to remain ubtrl the question should be settled in the Courts as to whether or not said bills were receivable for taxes. 1- ?* J- n i. n XI SteiUS liliUr 1U WIS UUU1II>J> WO V. Ui VI. Railroad Company tendered such Bank Bills for the taxes due by Bald Company for that year but the question was not argued in tbe Court until tbe spring of 1880, when it c^me up before Judge Kershaw in the oity of Columbia. It was decided by him that said Bank Bills were not reoeivable for taxes and an order was made requiring the Receiver of the Railroad to take up said Bank Bills and to substitute good and current money for the same. This tbe Receiver did on the 8th day of June, 1880, as appears from the Treasurer's receipt as found among the Railroad papers in the Master's office in Columbia, since this investigation was begun, but he (the Treasurer) made no entry in his books by which to charge himself with the amount so collected nor did he notify the Auditor of the fact, in order that he might charge him with it and of course the Auditor did not nor could he charge him with a matter not found on his books and of which he had no knowledge whatever?and thus the matter stood up to within a few weeks back. The whole amount of said Railroad tax was $2,616.46, of which $1,121.66 was on account of State taxes; $996.55 for the County, and $498.25 on account of the public schools. The portion belonging to the State was paid to the State Treasurer, as per receipt held by the County Treasurer, in a few days after the same waa received, and that belonging to the County and School fund has been paid out within the last six weeks. We investigated several of the annual settlements made by the County Auditor with the Treasurer and found more or less errors in all of those we examined. In the settlement for the fiscal year of 1883 the Treasurer was given credit for $950, as having been paid by hiui to the School Commissioner on account of his salary, when as a matter of fact he paid said officer only 9600. It seems that the Treasurer advanced to the School Commissioner in the early part of the year $350 on his salary and took his receipt for the same. When the Commissioner made out his account at the end of the fiscal year for the entire amount of his salary, this advance was deducted and only the balance was paid him, (as to which fact they are both agreed), bilt the receipt for tho $350 was not taken up by the School Commissioner. In the annual settlement between tho Auditor and Treasurer for that year he (the Treasurer) was given credit for the entire amount of the account as well as for the $350 advanced on the same. Again, in the settlement for the next year there was an error in tho addition of the aggregate amount of school claims paid by the Treasurer by which he failed to get credit for as much as he should have by some $400. In conclusion we beg to say that while if wnuhl sflnm thn.t in the distiluirce of the duty devolved upon us, in making tbis investigation, we have found many things not exactly as they should have been, and some things palpably wrong, still it is a fact that we have found much ; to commend and approve. Respectfully submitted, G. A. VISAKSKA, T. W. MORTON, S. W. COCHRAN, Committee of Grand Jury. R. E. Hill, Expert. EXHIBIT B. The State of South Carolina, 1 Abbeville County. June Term, 1888. Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the. Grand Jury : a The County Commissioners respeotfufl ly make the following report with reference to the finances of the county. JUL To cash on hand last settlement fiscal year 1886-87 $ 68 Fines and Licenses- 20,466 70 Special Roads and Bridges 8,188 34 Special Court House 1,481 82 M Back taxes on aocoant Beak ] Bills tendered 999 07 S Back taxes, Jennings, Harmon 1 and others....; 279 00 m $32,963 67 ; '^9 By checks County Coixent... ? - ' % ay coeoKs noaas .ana mage* Special . 80 ^ By checks Court House Special 1,431 82 By check past indebtedness 1J277 75 '>1| By cash on. band current. 317 14 By cash on band Special Roads and Bridges. 308 64 132,883 07 M Statement to date of collection* .and disbursement* for present fiscal year (1887-88). To fines, licenses, Ac., ' :^| reported to date by County Treasurer.....9 969 80 Amount paid Court . J||jB and other current expenses 868 95 . ''-w^ Balance cash on hand , for present year. $ 132 8&-f 182 38 Balance on hand financial year 1886-87- 347 U Balance on hand Spe- * oial Total on bands County Treasurer. $ 773 03 # 77$ 03 Total amount, claims "^0 '. approved to date ami | unpaid fiscal year - 1887-88.. f7,588 15-f7,688 15 Amount past indebt edoess reported at ? PJgm February term.Courtt^ 10 Amount paid these. claims since last report f ^77 75 Total past indebt'4noa>H/J0l ;IM8t SS TheBokru -s-?. jnrtlfyxMo report Dlat the finances of the county. are much improved and if ,uo disaster.occurs to Increase the expenditure by . sane pfovi- .., ?/ dential visitation, we shallheeWe to pay Wk all past indoblednesa asweU'ae all aar- ^ rent expenses, and leave a considerable balance in t&e Uonnty treasniy. ' >Zi Respectfully submitted, J. T. PARKS, Clerk B. C. C. A. C. " GENERAL ORDERS. IN THE Gbnzbal SESSIONS, - ' ; ' Abbeville.Cowrr. June Term, 1888. . On motion of Jas. L. Orr, Solicitor, or- , dered s ?' 1. That all recognisances whloh bar# > < ^ not been specially discharged, be oeottaaed over to the next term. - / i ' 2. That bench warrants issue against all persons agaiilst whom bills of Indictment have been found at this, or ugkj foiraer term, and who have not yet b*eo wuuu aupnoi iu? JUiU against all persona who hue btto COB- < . ^ victed at this, or any former, tans, <and ' . ,'i have not appeared to receive judgment.** And if any of the said persona have remoyed from or are without the limit of this county, that the bench THEflTM* against them, or any of them, beAQWWd* | ed by the Clerk to the 8herifT?fcj?y and every oounty in this State, in whiefcaueh persons, or any of'them, respectively ^ side or may be found. 3. That scire facias, or rule toftho.w " ^ cause, issue against all pe*soua who. have 1 been bound over to prosecute or J swer, or to give evidence, and who not appeared, pursuant to the contHtifti^ " of their resoeotive recognizances: and al so against all persons who h?v.e b^u summoned to attend Court aa GUraml or Petit Jurors and who haye not attended or been excused. < . 4. That process of execution Inane against all persons who at this, or any former term, have been fined, and have uot paid their fines; or who have been convicted, or pleaded guilty, and June* not paid the fees and costs taxed aaddua upon their respective prosecutions. 5. That the Clerk issue prooeaalo bind over all witnesses, who have not been bound over, not only in jwomHtffcHMJilready returned to tblaOourfcaod: set finally disposed of, but also in ail probations which may be returned intohia.of- ,-Vfice by competent authority befbre the next term. That so much of the presantmeafc-aa re- jHRj lates to county matters aa to jniy aar- UH vices be copied by the Clerk and served -HE upon the County Commissioners. W. fl. WALLACE, jH Presiding. Judge. 6 June, 1888. B Reconciliation. ^ A certain stubborn, recklew south had a violent quarrel with.Idaklwl.father, and after stealing money from his drawer, ran away. A ymr afterward the father learned that tne xspeSrace was In London, llring"fc*t and rinking hard. He employed* dftec. tive to ascertain hisson** whereabout?, and at length found him shattered and sick in a house of infamy. The ftther a hastened to the spot, and .ttir wordi, ^ "That youth is uuuon," were tfie passport to the roor^- " ^.s tht Ikther aroused the wretched yojtfh, turnedB his bloated face and bl^gfj^jyes vvaru mm, im urn wuii^ poor boy! I have corr% will you come borne?" rn g^ZSnjnMUfl tears tbe conquered "Father, can you ['II go borne with picture of wi^f^BRHHHn all tbe Morality a^^H^U^^HB^flEH^BBHH inotber is just h ich^^H|HB9BH^B^HgnH|H