DEMOCRATIC WATCHMAN. SUPPLEMENT.
BELLEFONTE, PENNA. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1891.
PATTISON 10° THE SENATE
The Subjects to Be Considered in the Extra.
ordinary Session Explained at Leagth.
STATE OFFICIALS TO BE REMOYED.
CHARGES AND EVIDENCE AGAINST
THEM GIVEN IN DETAIL,
Millions Lost to Taxpayers by Neglect or
Collusion—Conclusions Drawn From the
Checkbook Stubs — Showing Up the
Rebate Steal—After Mercantile
Appraisers and Magistrates.
Governor Pattison’s message to the sen-
ate is given below in full. Itis upon this
document that the senate is expected to
inaugurate an investigation which will re-
sult in request to the governor from two-
thirds or more of the senators that he re-
move from office Auditor General Mc-
The
message also asks the senate to consider
the propriety of removing certain mag-
Camant and State Treasurer Boyer.
istrates and constables of Philadelphia,
who are alleged to have been in a con-
spiracy to defraud the commonwealth in
connection with the collection of delin-
quent mercantile taxes.
The Addressto the Senate.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMON-)
WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
HARRISBURG; Pa., October 13, 1891.
To the Senate of the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania:
GENTLEMEN: By virtue of the authority vested
in me by the constitution, I have convened you
in extraordinary session by proclamation for the
transaction of executive business. Ia my judg-
ment, conditions éxist in the commonwealth
to warrant and require the exercise of this
power. The constitution provides that all offi-
cers elected by the people, other than some
especially excepted, shall be removed by the
governor for reasonabie cause, after due notlce
and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of
the senate. Having convened you in order to
give you an opportunity to take appropriate ac-
tion, under your constitutional powers, with
relation to the alleged misgonduct of the heads
or two departments of the state government as
well as of other elective officers, I deem it my
duty to briefly review the course of events
which have led to the call for this ssssion of
the senate, and to refer to you such sources as
I know of for urther information.
On or shout May 21, 1891, John Bardsley, treas-
urer of the city and county of Philadelphia,
elected in 1888, and whose term would not have
expired until the end of the present year, prac-
tically retired from the active discharge of the
duties of his office, and tendered his resignation
of the same, to take effect May 30. It was soon
disclosed that very large sums of money which
he had from time to time collected for the com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania, had not been paid
over by him, and that no adequate security for
the same existed or had ever been given to the
state.
Several Investigations on Foot.
For the several months succeeding the retire-
ment of John Bardsley from his office, various in-
vestigation have been in progress with a view to
ascertain the character and extent of his mal-
feasance, the complicated transactions in which
he was engaged, using the public moneys.for pri-
vate speculation and other unlawful personal
purposes; and to discover, if ‘possible, the con-
nection and compl city of other persons, official
or private, in his illegal and criminal acts. One
of these investigations is being conducted by a
committee of the councils of Philadelphia and
another is in charge of experts, duly appointed
and acting under the authority of the mayor of
Philadelphia. Representatives of the treasury
department of the United States have been en-
gaged, for many weeks in examining the books
of at least two of the national banks in which
John Bardsley deposited city and state funds. A
commission, assisted by expert accountants, of
my own appointment, has been likewise en-
gaged in investigating the accounts of John
Bardsley with the banks and has been inquiring
generally into the relations of the accounts of
John Bardsley with the commonwealth and his
transactions with its moneys. The pres-
ent treasurer of Philadelphia city and
county isalso actively and earnestly engaged in
investigating the practices ‘and in uncovering
the abuses which have prevailed in the former
administrations of his office, especially touching
its relations to the commonwealth.
Criminal prosecutions were begun against
John Bardsley by the district attorney of Phila-
delphia, and terminated with his plea of guilty
and sentence to fifteen years imprisonment in
the Eastern penitentiary for the conversion of
public moneys to his own use and for loaning
them for interest.
Bardsley Refused to Testify.
In a preliminary hearing before two judges of
the courts of Philadelphia, conducted by the dis-
trict attorney of that county, John Bardsley was
called as a witness to testify to his relations with
the state officials, whose duty it was to require
from him an accounting for and payment of the
money collected by him for the commonwealth.
He persistently and defiantly refused to testity,
whereupon it was held by the court and hy the
district attorney that no warrant for the arrest
of the state officials could, under the circum-
stances, properly issue.
At that hearing, and subsequently, a large
number of letters were produced, substantially
admitted to be genuine, written to John Bards-
ley by officers of the commonwealth, whose duty
under the law it was to have required account-
ing for and payment to the commonwealth of
the public moneys coming into his hands.
A joint committee of the two branches of the
legislature, appointed January 19, 1891, author-
ized to inquire into the administration of the of-
fices of auditor general and state treasurer, and
instructed to report to the executive at the” ear-
liest time possible, has held sessions from time
vo time since the adjournment of the legislature,
and the evidence which it has taken will be ac-
cessible to you, I assume.
Hon. George 8. Graham, district attorney of
Philadelphia county, and Hon. E. 8. Stuart,
mayor of Philadelphia; Francis B. Reeves, chair-
man of the commission appointed by the exec-
utive of the commonwealth, and Mr. William
Van Osten, chairman of the committee of coun-
cils. have freely offered to furnish all the evidence
in their possession bearing on the subject of the
present inquiry.
Bardsley’s Big Stealings.
From these various sources of information it
appears to be the undisputed fact, that during
most of his official term John Bardsley was per-
mitted to retain and to use a very large amount
of money collected for and payable into the state
treasury, for which he neither made, nor was
ever called upon and required to make, the ac-
count directed by law. For the collection of the
moneys so retained by him no such legal steps
were ever taken as are mandatory upon the state
treasurer and auditor general; and he is shown
to have embezzled them to the amount of more
than a million and a quarter dollars.
The memoranda and entries made in hisbooks
at the time by John Bardsley, and when he had
no apparent reason to expect public disclosure or
adverse use of them, indicate that apart from
the salary, fees and commissions of his office, to
which he was entitled by law, he made as inter-
est, dividends and bribes nearly $300,000. The
greater part of this was paid to him for the use
of the state moneys which he was allowed to re-
tain in his possession, and for his exercise and
abuse of powers in association with and under
the control of the auditing and fiscal depart-
ments of the state.
The stubs of his check book and the entries
upon his private memoranda, made at the time,
show that he paid to a clerk of the auditor gen-
eral’s office a one-half share of moneys crimi-
nally received by him from the magistrates of
Philadelphia in whose hands he placed the suits
for the collection of delinquent mercantile taxes.
The magistrates have testified that they paid
John Bardsley these moneys to the amount of
$350 each, in each year, he deducting it from
their warrants on the state treasury, which the
auditor general testifies he sent to John Bards-
ley, and not to the persons in whose favor they
| were drawn.
Livsey’s Remarkable Absence.
These same memoranda and stubs show that
John Bardsley regularly received large sums of
money from the publishers of newspapers,
which obtained the advertisement of the mer-
cantile appraisement lists, and were paid by the
commonwealth for this advertising. The selec-
tion of these newspapers was the duty and right
of the auditor general and John Bardsley, act-
ing cojointly. It is admitted by some of the
newspaper publishers that they paid these
moneys to a clerk in the office of Auditor Gen-
eral Thomas McCamant; and the books of John
Bardsley indicate that he divided the bribes thus
received with Auditor General Thomas McCam-
anj, or with some as yet undiscovered person of
the same initials. The auditor general has de-
nied under oath that he received any share of
these moneys; and his clerk is dead.
in the volume of testimony already taken and
from the reports of the different authorities en-
gaged in the work of investigation, other signifi-
cant and serious matters appear.
William Livsey, three times state treasurer,
familiar with the office, and the cashier of State
Treasurer Henry K. Boyer, has been absent from
the state almost continuously since the first
Bardsley exposures. He is reported as being be-
yond the reach of all officials and investigating
committees who have desired his presence for
some months past. The state treasurer has testi-
fied that he has no knowledge of Mr, Livsey’s
whereabouts, and that since July last he has had
no communication with or from him, except to
receive and accept his resignation.
Among the books and papers of John Bardsley
appear evidence and memoranda made by him,
to the effect that on certain days and dates he
received large sums of money for interest from
banks, depositories and individuals to whom he
had loaned the funds of the state, which he was
permitted to retain or which was transferred to
him by the consent, permission, confederation
and connivance of State Treasurer Henry K.
Boyer, Cashier William Livsey and Auditor Gen-
eral Thomas McCamant.
Somebody Shared in the Spoils.
These same memoranda and check books show
payments by John Bardsley of money to William
Livsey, cashier of the state treasury, and pre-
sumably to Auditor General Thomas McCamant,
from time to time during the period that he was
permitted by these officials to retain the enor-
mous amounts of state moneys which he then
had in his hands.
Regularly, for a considerable period, on or
about the first of each month, after receiving in-
terest, Bardsley appears to have drawn checks
for a portion of it for the benefit of some person
or persons whose names cannot be ascertained
by reason of the mutilation of the stubs of his
check books. With like regularity and at dates
quickly following his receipts of interest, as will
appear from the letters, of which admittedly cor-
rect copies are accessible to you, Auditor General
Thomas McCamant wrote, gracefully acknowl-
edging favors received from John Bardsley. His
statement as to the meaning of these letters will
also be accessible to you.
In like tecms of acknowledgments for favors
sent him, at dates corresponding with John
Bardsley’s checks, William Livsey wrote fre-
quent letters to him.
For example John Bardsley received interest
monthly for the state moneys he was permitted
by the auditor general and state treasurer to re-
tain and use, instead of paying them into the
state treasury, as directed by law.
On April 1, 1840, John Bardsley drew a check,
of which the stub is missing, for $500. On April
2, 1890, he sent a registerd letter to Auditor Gen-
eral Thomas McCamant and another to Cashier
William Livsey, of which they acknowledge the
receipt.
For Favors Received.
On May 1, 1890, John Bardsley drew a similar
check for $666. In a letter of May 3, 1890. Audi-
tor General Thomas McCamant says: ‘‘Please
accept my thanks for favors received th's morn-
ing.”
On June 2, 1890, John Bardsley drew a like
check for $666. In a letter to him, dated June 4,
1890, Auditor General Thomas McCamant says:
“Your favor of yesterday received and you will
aceept my thanks.”
On July 5, 1890, John Bardsley drew a check
for some unknown person for §7¢0. On July 6,
1890, he received a letter in which Auditor Gen-
eral Thomas McCamant says: ‘I have your fa-
vor and you will please accept my thanks.”
On August 5, 1880, John Bardsley’s check, of
which the stub hag disappeared, was drawn for
$700. Auditor General McCamant’s letter of the
same date says: “You will please accept my
{hanks for favors received.” On August b, 1890,
Cashier William Livsey wrote: “Your compli-
mentary note received, many thanks.”
On September 4, 1890, John Bardsley drew a
check, of which the stub has been torn from his
check book, for $600. On September 5. 1890,
Auditor General McCamant wrote him this ac-
knowledgment: ‘I have your letters this morn-
ing and you will please accept my thanks.”
On October 2,1890, John Bardsley drew a check
for $600. The letter to him from Auditor Gen-
eral Thomas McCamant, under date of October
3, 1890, says: “I am in receipt of your favors yes-
terday, and you will please accept my thanks for
the information therein contained.” In a letter
dated October 8, 1890, Cashier William Livsey
says: “Compliments of yesterday duly received.
Accept thanks for same.”
On October 81,1890, John Bardsley drew a
check for $600. William Livsey writes under
date of November 5, 1890: “Am obliged for your
kind note and compliments of 1st inst.
The Contents Were Damaged.
On November 29, 1890, John Bardsley drew a
check for $600. On November 29, 1890, Auditor
| General Thomas McCamant telegraphed to John
Bardsley: “Letter received, damaged but I trust
not very seriously; ascertain if you can from
trustworthy sources what probabilities are and
‘ write me so that it will be received to-morrow
morning. Confidential.” On November 30, 1890,
Auditor General Thomas McCamant wrote to
him: “Your letter received and I am much
obliged for your kihdness.” On December 2,
1890, William Livsey wrote to John Bardsley:
‘“Yeur note was duly received. I hope Keystone
will pull through.”
On December 24, 1890, John Bardsley drew a
check of the same kind for $600. On December
26, 1890, William Livsey wrote him: ‘Your kind
note received.” On December 21, 1890, Thomas
McCamant telegraphed to John Bardsley: *‘Can-
not leave to-day, but will be at your office to-
morrow at twelve o’clock m.”
On December 24, 1889; Bardsley drew a check
“to the order of myself” for W. L., $500; on the
stub of this check—not torn out of the check
book—appears the following: “William Livsey,
for his kindness to me during the year.” In a
letter from William Livsey to John Bardsley,
dated December 31, 1889, he wrote: “I received
your letter in Pittsburg on Saturday last when I
arrived home. Thanks for your kindly consid-
eration.”
On February 28, 1891, a check was drawn by
John Bards ey for $1,000, and upon the stub of it
he wrote: “For L & M - January, February,
$1,000.” '
On March 17, 1891, John Bardsley drew a chec
for $375; and on the stub wrote: ‘Cash; half of
$750 Mc. $375.”
The Rebate Steal.
On May 31, 1889, Auditor General McCamant
approved the bills of the Philadelphia news-
papers for advertising the mercantile appraise-
ments for $40,722.60. On the same day, accord-
ing to John Bardsley’s memoranda, he paid them
and received $16,289.04 from the newspapers in
which he and Auditor General Thomas McCam-
ant had conjointly directed the mercantile ap-
praifements to be advertised. Of these bribes
John Bardsley’s books represent that he paid
$2,000 to H. N. Graffen, a clerk in the auditor
general's office, and $7,144.52 to Auditor General
Thomas McCamant. The telegrams show an ap-
pointment of Graffen wi h Bardsley on May 31,
1889.
On June?2, 1890 Auditor General Thomas Mec-
Camant approved the bill for the mercantile ad-
vertising which he and John Bardsley had con-
jointly directed to be published in four Phila-
delphia newspapers. These bills aggregated
$42,865.00 and John Bardsley’s memoranda in-
dicate chat he got $17,076 from the publishers of
the newspapers and paid $7,108.85 of it, in “large”
bills, to some person unknown. The stub of the
check on which the money was drawn is miss-
ing. Itwaspa'd on June 11, 183. In a letter
dated June 6, 1890, Auditor General Thomas Mc-
Camant made an appointment to meet John
Bardsley at the office of the latter at 6.30 p, m.,
on the 1ith of June. On July 6, 1890, Auditor
General Thomas McCamant directed John Bards-
ley to invest $10,000 in railroad bonds for him.
On April 14, 1891, Auditor General Thomas
McCamant approved the bills of the Philadelphia
newspapers for advertising the mercantile ap-
praisement lists. They aggregated $46,656.
They were paid by John Bardsley out of the state
funds in his hands on April 15, 1891; and on the
same day he made a deposit in cash to his own
account of $17,320; on April 18 he drew a check
to the order of himself on this fund for $8,064.40
and made an entry on its’ stub: ‘‘Mc. myself in
full, £8,064.40.”
The Mercantile Appraisers’ Conspiracy.
On January 1, 1891, referring to an inquiry of a
then member of your body as to the amounts
paid to the Philadelphia newspapers for this ad-
vertising, Auditor Generali Thomas McCamant
wrote to John Bardsley that he had withheld
the information desired and advising Bardsley
before going to first consult the newspapers that
made the publication.
It further appears that the five mercantile ap-
praisers for Philadelphia, appointed by John
Bardsley and Auditor General McCamant, have,
during each of the years in which they have ex-
ercised the duties of their office, returned for ad-
vertisement and appraisement a large list of
fictitious names, of persons not residing at the
places designated, of persons from whom they
had reason 10 know no taxes could be collected,
persons whom they themselves had, from year
to year, exempted, and persons against whom,
again and again, the commonwealth, at enor-
mous cost, had brought fruitless suits for collec-
tion; so that out of a total appraisement of $529,
799 for retail merchants, brokers, auctioneers
and eating houses, billiards, &c., for the years
1889 and 1890, the deductions for uncollectible
taxes, half the cost of publishing thelist (the other
half being charged to thelliquor licenses) and the
costs paid to magistrates and constables in cases
in which the commonwealth recovered nothing,
amounted t» nearly $250,000, or about half the
entire ass@ssment. Indeed, for the years 1885-
1890, inclusive, the costs of advertising the mer-
cantile appraisement lists in Philadelphia alone
were about $270,000, although the auditor general
testified that no public advantage whatever re-
sulted from this publication, and that it was an
utter waste of public moneys. For the same
years the costs in delinquent cases aggregated
over $200,000, for which not a dollar was realized
to the commonwealth; and the credits given for
uncollectibie taxes footed up $425,000.
The Auditor General's Admissiens.
The auditor general in his testimony has ad-
mitted, in substance, that no effort has ever been
made to determine the accuracy or the honesty
of these returns. These enormous bills of ex-
penses have been promptly and unguestioningly
paid out of the state treasury. Yet a searching
investigation, begun and in progress under the
present treasurer of Philadelphia city and county,
has already disclosed wholesale padding of the
lists for the purpose of defrauding the state, and
endless ramifications of a corrupt system.
Indubitable proof is furnished that the state
has been defrauded out of its just revenues. The
mercantile appraisement books of the past three
years present evidence of this on their face;
while those of the four preceding administrations
have entirely disappeared from the office; and
the auditor general and ex-city treasurers re-
port utter ignorance of their whereabouts.
So-called ‘‘suits” to recover delinquent mercéan-
tile taxes appear to have been simply schemes to
raid the state treasury. By contrast, under im-
proved methods, instituted this year under di-
rection of the treasurer of Philadelphia, thou-
sands of dollars have already been saved by not
engaging the state in costly and fruitless litiga-
tion and by honestly pressing to recovery judg-
ments against persons who have been heretofore
permitted to evade their debts to the common-
wealth. More has already been collected in this
way for 1891 than in any previous year, though
less than one-tenth of the cases have been heard.
Inview of the relations which are admitted
and shown to have existed Letween the ap-
praisers, the magistrates, the city treasurer, and
the auditor general’s department, thls condition
of things becomes of significant import.
Proceedings are now pending in the criminal
courts agalnst the mercantile appraisers of Phila-
delphia, charged with conspiracy to cheat and
defraud the comruonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In this connection careful inquiry should be
made to ascertain whether there is ‘reasonable
cause” for the removal of any of the magistrates
or constables of Philadelphia because of faithless
or dishonest conduct in the performance of their
official duties.
Embezzled Over a Million. é
From the testimony given by Thomas Mc-
Camant, auditor general, and by Henry K.
Boyer, state treasurer, before the legislative in-
vestigating committee, it appears further that of
the moneys collected by John Bardsley for the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania he has failed to
pay over the following amounts:
4 ersonal property tax
License taxes (1890).....000000
$622,013 11
289,232 96
Municipal loans tax (1890)
POLAL vicseri-cnrresrnees i tierimueiatein $1,366,378 59
Of this total no portion has been secured to
the commonwealth except $120,000, the entire
amount of the license tax bond given by Bards-
ley, leaving due to the state about a million and
a quarter dollars. In addition to this sum there
was paid to John Bardsley out of the state treas-
ury, on December 30, 1890, $420,000 for the public
schools of the city of Philadelphia, no portion of
which was applied by him for that purpose, and
for the whole amount of which the authorities
of Philadelphia claim to have a legal and moral
obligation against the commonwealth. In what
proportion the losses of thee public moneys
shall be divided between the city and the state is
the subject of litigation not yet concluded. But,
in any event, it appears that a total of $1,786,
378 59 of money belonging to the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania has been misapplied, misappro-
priated, embezzled and stolen. The subject of
your inquiry should be whether or not the re-
sponsibility of this loss lies with the fiscal and
auditing officers of the state, or either of them,
or of the subordinates for whose acts they are offi-
cially responsible.
Bardsley Kindly Treated.
Fiom the testimony of Thomas McCamant,
auditor general, given before the joint legislative
investigating committee, and from an examina-
tion of the books of the state department in the
treasurer’s office of Philadelphia city and connty
it appears that nearly ail the moneys collected
for the commonwealth on account of personal
property tax are received by the city and county
treasurer, aml were in particular received by
John Bardsley before the first of August in each
year. The act of June 1, 1889, (p. 1., 427), under
which these taxes are levied, prescribed that the
several counties and cities collecting them ‘on
the first Monday of September shall pay into the
‘state treasury all such sum or sums of money as
may then have been collected, and shall on the
second Monday of November immediately ‘fol-
lowing, in each year, complete and pay into the
said state treasury the wholeamount remaining
unpaid, anc fn default thereof it shall be the
duty of the auditor general to add ten per cent.
penalty to each county or city on all taxes re-
maining unpaid on the second Monday of No-
vember of each year.” Of the moneys thus col-
lected for the personal property tax of 1839 by
John Bardsley, (the commonwealth’s share,
amounting to $530,044.27), only $200,000 were paid
in before the second Monday of November. The
sum of $124,500 was paid in January, 1890, and
the balance, $170,895, was retained by John Bards-
ley for his own personal use until November 28,
1890, more than a year after-the same was due
and payable to the state, and several months af-
ter the collections for the ensuing year were in
his hands. This money of the commonwealth
was allowed to remain in his possession and un-
der his control, with the knowledge, consent and
permission of the auditor general and state treas-
urer. No settlement of the same was ever trans-
mitted to the attorney general for collection, no
penalties nor interest were charged against John
Bardsley and no commissions were abated by
reason of his default.
Holding Back Taxes.
Of the taxes collected for 1890, amounting to
$785,753.27, no portion was paid on the first Mon-
day of September, nor on the second Monday of
November following. On December 31, 1890,
$1£0,000 was remitted to the commonwealth by
John Bardsley, but on the same day this was re-
turned to him by the fiscal and auditing officers
of the stat>. On January 13, 1891, it was again
paid into the state treasury by Bardsley, and af-
ter that t'me no portion of the personal property
taxes collected for 1890 were paid into the state
treasury, and $632,012.11 of public moneys have
on this account been embezzled, stolen and lost.
Among the papers of John Bardsley is found a
letter from the state treasurer, Henrv K. Boyer,
dated Harrisburg, December 22, 1890, in which
that official says: “I find I can get along without
any money this month from you,’” Bardsley hav-
ing in his hands at that time, of state moneys,
$1,456,758.06. nearly all of which had been col-
lected by him prior to August 1, 1890, and most of
which had been embezzled, stolen and lost. Ina
letter dated November 24, 1890, Auditor General
Thomas McCamant advises John Bardsley to “al-
low the city share of the 1890 tax’’ to remain in
his hands until December. \
From the beginning of the year 1891 until he
quit his office, John Bardsley collected for the
commonwealth, of personal property taxes, $289,-
232 96, no part of which was paid by him into the
state treasury, and most of which has been em-
bezzled, stolen and lost.
Of the license moneys collected by Bardsley for
the commonwealth in 1889, amounting to $572,-
339.36, most of which was collected before July 1,
1889, he was permitted to retain in his possession
and for his own private use for more than a year,
$237.078.48, for which no settlement against him
was ever transmitted to the attorney general for
collection, no interest or penalties were imposed
upon him and there was no abatement of his
commission for his default.
The Commonwealth’s Slim Security.
Of the $627,604.18 collected by him on the same
account for the year 1890, most of which was
paid to him before June 1, 1830, he was permitted
by the fiscal and auditing authorities to retain
the whole amount in his hands until February
27, 1891, when he made a payment of $100,000 and
on March 183, 1891, of $160,000, leaving a balance
of $367,604.18 of the commonwealth’s money, for
all of which he was indebted to it at the time of
his imprisonment; and for no part of which, ex-
cept by the $120,000 bond, is the commonwealth
secured.
During somuch of the year 1891 as John Bards-
ley was in the exercise of the duties of the office
of city treasurer, of the moneys he collected for
licenses, he claims a credit of the greater part for
expenses and fees of mercantile appraisements.
For the tax on municipal loans, payable from
the city to the state, John Bardsley received
from the city of Philadelphia, on June 26, 1889,
$40,680.49), and on December 30, 1889, $39,524.77,
making a total of $80,108.17 which he was per-
mitted to retain in his own hands and for hisown
personal use until September 30, 1890, when it
was paid over.
On June 6, 1890, he received from the city of
Philadelphia, for like purposes, $47,444.88, and on
December 5, 1390, he received $43,167.75, making
a total of $90,612.63, all of which he was allowed
to retain for his own personal use, all of which
he embezzled, and no portion of which was ever
paid into the state treasury.
In all the foregoing instances it appears from
the testimony of Messrs. Boyer and McCamant
that neither of them made any attempt to en-
force any of the provisions of ths act of May 7,
1889, to which, as follows, I now direct your par-
ticular attention: 8
A Law that Was Not Enforced.
An act providing for quarterly returns and pay-
ments by county and city officers of
moneys received by them for the use of the
commonwealth.
Section 1. Be it enacted, &c., That on the first
Monday of July next, and quarterly the eafter,
it shall be the duty of each county and city offi-
cer torender to the auditor general and state
treasurer, under oath or affirmation, quarterly
returns of all moneys received for the use of the
commonwealth, designating under proper hea !s
the sources from which said moneys were re-
ceived, and to pay the said moneys into the state
treasury.
Section 2. Any officer who shall refuse or ne-
glect for the period of thirty days after the same
shall become due, to make any return or pay-
ment as required by the preceding section of
this act, shall forfeit his fees and commissions on
the whole amount of money collected during the
quarter, and shall be subject to a penalty of ten
per centum, which shall be added to the amouut
of the tax found due.
Section 3. The state treasurer and auditor gen-
eral, or either of them, or any agent appointed
by them or either of them, are hereby author-
ized to examine the books and accounts of any
county or city officer who shall refuse or neglect
to make any return required by the first section
of this act, and from information obtained from
such examination the auditor general and state
treasurer shall settle an account against such of-
ficer, in the usual manner for the settlement of
public accounts, and in the settlement of such
accountsjand not to exceed fifty per centum, to
the amount of the tax to provide for any losses
which might otherwise result to the common-
wealth, from neglect or refusal of the said officer
to furnish the return.
The State’s Safeguard.
Section 4. If the amount of any account set-
tled in accordance with the preceding section of
this act shall not be paid into the sate treasury
within fifteen days from the date of said ac-
count then the same shall be placed in the hands
of the attorney general for collection and shall
bear interest from fifteen days after date of set-
tlement, at the rate of twelve per centum per
annum, and if the auditor general and state
treasurer, or either of them, shall deem it con-
ducive to the public interest to proceed imme-
diately upon said account against the sureties of
said officer, they shall so instruct the attorney
general, who shall proceed in accordance with
such direction received from them or either of
them. »
Section 5. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent
herewith, or which are substantially re-enacted
hereby, shall be, and the same are hereby re-
pealed, saving, preserving and excepting unto
the commonwealth the right to collect any
taxes accrued or accruing under said repealed
acts or parts of acts.
In his testimony before the legislative com-
mittee State Treasurer Henry K. Boyer admitted
that he understood this to be the law, and that
quarlerly returns and settlements ought to be
made. Auditor General Thomas McCamant tes-
tified that the law was impracticable, but con-
ceded that under John Bardsley’s successor, the
present treasurer of Philadelphia, the law has
been st ictly complied with, more than a million
dollars collected ince John Bardsley’s resigna-
tion having already been paid into the state
treasury in regular monthiy payments,
Bardsley’s Little Pull.
Thomas McCamant, auditor general of Penn-
sylvania, testified upon the same occasion that
on December 30, 1890, at the instance of John
Bardsley, he drew his warrant on the state treas-
urer for $150,000 on. account of Philadelphia
county’s share in the personal property tax of
1890, though at that time no portion of the said
tax, except $150 000, which seems to have been
simultaneously paid out of the state treasury,
had been paid to or received by the common-
wealth. Under the sixteenth section of the act
of June 1, 1889, it is prescribed that the one third
of the personal property tax which is collected
and paid into the state treasury shall be re-
turned by the state treasurer to the connty pay-
ing it, and it has been testified that the board of
revenue commissioners decided that under this
act the several counties of the commonwealth
were required to pay into the &ate treasury the
entire amount of the personal property tax and
were not entitled to receive any portion of it
until after the whole amount had been paid in.
Mr. McCamant, auditor general, testified that, at
the time he drew and remitted the warrant for
the before mentioned $150,000 to John Bardsley,
there was then owing from him to the common-
wealth $632,013.11 for tax on personal property,
and $627.604.18 on account of licenses, a total of
$1,259,677.29, all of which facts appear upon the
books of the auditing and fiscal departments of
the commonwealth.
At the same session of the legislative investi-
gating committee it was admitted by Henry K.
Boyer, state treasurer, and it appears by the
records of the auditor general’, state treasurer’s
and school departments—that on December 30,
1890, in accordance with the agreement and con-
federation of himself and the cashier of his
office, William Livsey,
Without Any Solicitation
on the part of the municipal or school authori-
ties of Philadelphia, or of any one connected with
the school department of the state, he instructed
and procured the superintendent of public in-
struction to draw warrants on the state treas-
urer on account of the schools appropriation for
Philadelphia county, amounting to $420,000; that
he had these warrants drawn five months in ad-
vance of the ending of the school year, seven
before the warrants of any one of the other
twenty-three hundred school districts were
drawn, for the express purpose of reducing the
balance of money in the general fund below the
limit of $1,550,000, and in order to evade the
operation of the law which required him, on
the first day of January, 1891, to apply all jsums
in the general fund exceeding that amount to
the sinking fund for investment in interest-bear-
ing securities.
He further testified that he carried these war-
rants himself to Philadelphia and delivered
them to John Bardsley; before he lett Harrisburg,
however, he charged them up as cash paid out of
the state treasury before January 1, 1891, in order
to prevent the money from being paid into the
sinking fund. John Bardsley, in his statement
in court, testified that he received the warrants
on January 8 or 4. It thus appears that State
Treasurer Boyer, himself a commissioner of the
sinking fund, sworn to obey and charged with
the execution of the law regulating the sinking
fund, deliberately, and for the express purpose of
defeating the law, diverted $420,006 into the
hands of John Bardsley. <
He further testified that when William Livsey,
cashier of the treasury, wrote to John Bardsley,
under date of December 23, 1830, that this was
done to reduce the general fund, and under date
of December 29, that ‘the warrants must be
charged not later than the thirty-first; also
checks drawn to get our account down;” that
such letters were written to John Bardsley by
the authority of and in pursuance of an agree-
ment made between Henry K. Boyer, state treas-
urer, and his cashier, William Livsey, to evade
and defeat the operations of the law regulating
the management of the state funds.
Never Reached its Destination.
H also appears that no portion of this $420,000,
thus improperly and unlawfully paid to John
Bardsley by the state treasurer, was ever paid
into the school fund of the city of Philadelphia;
but that the whole of it has been stolen and lost;
and that no portion of this loss would have been
incurred had the warrant been drawn at the
regular time, in accordance with law, and at the
same date that the school appropriation became
effective for the other districts of the state.
I submit this summary of the facts touching
the administration of these two departments,
admitted and testified to by. their chief officers
before a joint committee of the legislature, in or-
der that the senate may determine the action ap-
propriate in the premises.
I regret the necessity which has arisen to sum-
mon you from your homes and accustomed avo-
cations to this extraordinary session. I have
awaited the resort to and the exhaustion of the
processes of the criminal laws. Their frustra-
tion has only intensified the righteous demand
of the people that their servants, sworn to obey
and enforce the laws and to protect and defend
the interests of the commonwealth, shall answer
for neglect of duty or complicity in crime. 1he
responsibility of determining whether reason-
able cause exists for the removal of them rests
with you. The public expects that it will be met
and discharged without regard to partisan ad-
vantange or detriment, and with a single con-
cern for the good name and honor eof the com-
monwealth. Iinvoke for your session that de-
liberation of counsel, joined with prompt dis-
patch of public business which every require-
ment of the occasion demands.
ROBERT E. PATTISON.
CROPS IN THIS STATE.
AN AVERAGE OF SEVENTEEN AND ONE-
HALF BUSHELS OF WHEAT PER ACRE.
Impossible to Estimate the Yield of Po-
tatoes in Some Localities—Secretary
Edge’s Latest Bulletin,
The reports received by the state board
of agriculture, since the threshing of the
wheat crop was commenced, warrant Sec-
retary Edge in increasing his estimate of
the yieid slightly. The final crop reports
of the board indicate that the wheat crop
of 1891 will amount to 22,500,000 bushels
from 1,300,000 acres, or at the average rate
of seventeen and a half bushels per acre.
In Chester, Lancaster and other southeast-
ern counties crops of over thirty-five
bushels per acre have been reported. Of
this crop fully 2,500,000 was used for seed,
leaving 20,000,000 for home use and for
sale. At present prices itis safe to esti-
mate the money value of the crop at $22,-
500,000. This is the largest crop for a-
number of years and may be compared
with that of 1872 which was estimated at
11,500,000 bushels.
The board estimates the oats crop of the
pust year at 31,500,000 bushels from 1,200,-
000 acres, or at the rate of an average yield
of 20} bushels per acre.
The yield of potatoes is estimated at 13,-
250,000 bushels from 142,000 acres; inasmuch
as this crop is still rott ng quite badly in
some localities it is impossible to even es-
timate the yield in marketable potatoes.
The hay crop of 1891 is estimated at 2,-
400,000 tons cut from 2,550,000 acres or at
the average rate of 1880 pounds per acre.
The yield was shortened by the fact that
in the southeastern part of the state the
wheat stubble of the crop of 1890 did not
show a good stand of clover; this falling
off was to some extent balanced by an un-
usual cut of natural grass in the northern
and northeastern counties of the state.
The yield of corn, based upon the re-
ports which have already reached the
board warrant an estimate of 44,000,000
bushels from 1,325,000 acres, or at the
average rate of 32.2 bushels per acre. The
southern and southeastern counties, whic a
are necessarily on account of location the
corn growing districs of the state, report
much larger yields, but the average of the
state is materially reduced by the yields in
the northern tier, where nothing but
small eared, short season varieties can be
profitably planted.
Secretary Edge estimates that if these
crops were at once turned into cash they
would yield the farmers of the state not
less than $78,000,000. A large proportion
of all of them must be used for food for
stock and the production of butter, milk,
mutton, pork and beef, and the price
which they will actually net the farmer
will altogether depend upon the price
which they receive for these products.
The reports of the board indicate that live
stock will generally go into Winter quar-
ters in more than the average condition,
and that there is less than the usual
amount of disease among farm inimals.
No great losses have been experienced
from contagious diseases, and the out-
breaks of Texan or Southern fever have
been less numerous than usual.
aera
Vsited the Bethlehem Iron Company.
BETHLEHEM, Oct. 14.—Secretary of the
Navy Tracy and Commodore Folger, of
the bureau of ordnance, made an official
visit to the ordnance department of the
Bethlehem iron company to-day. They
witnessed the forging of a thirteen-inch
cannon and a large armor plate by the
125 ton steam hammer, and the making
of a 180 ton casting, the largest ever made
in this country. The visitors expressed
themselves highly gratified at the pro-
gress being made in the fulfillment of the
government contract.