The Abbeville press and banner. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, June 13, 1888, Image 1
: 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