00 EE ES SR
Jat
Bellefonte, Pa., Oct. 14,1898.
ame
THE TREASURY LOOTERS.
The Appailing Figures That Show How It Costs
More Than Ten and a Half Millions of Dollars in
Excess of the Cost in 1883-86 to Run the State.
The Machine Figuring on New Tax Bills to Get
Money to make Good the Treasury Deficiency.
A mnarrisburg correspondent writes:
here are two problems of serious im-
portance facing the treasury officials
of Pennsylvania to-day. The first is
how, for the sake of the Republican
machine, by whose favor they hold of-
fice, the fact that there is a practical
deficit of nearly $3,000,000 in the state
treasury can be disguised or explained
satisfactorily to the voters. The second
is, how they can get the additional
money which will be absolutely needed
for the coming year’s expenses if ma-
chine rule is to be continued, or unless
an anti-Republican Legislature shall
be chosen this fall and shall proceed,
immediately after convening, to stop
all the steals and cut off all the extrav-
agances.
As to preventing the people from
learning that there is a deficit, that it
is an ugly one, and that it will sooner
or later produce no end of embarrass-
ment, both for the state and its cred-
jtors, that is simply impossible. The
facts are too plain. The ordinarily in-
telligent man has but to take up the
reports of the state treasurer and audi-
tor general and glance for a moment
at the figures to satisfy himself as to
the melancholy and disgraceful truth.
Each year, for the four years last past,
the appropriations have exceeded the
estimated expenditures, and the actual
expenditures have been greater than
the estimated income by from two to
four millions of dollars. For the year
1898 the treasurer’s estimate of income,
leaving the sinking fund out of consid-
eration, was $11,191,628, while he found
that, in going over the 1897 appropria-
tion bills and adding to their totals the
overdue payments on previous appro-
priations, there would be needed during
1898, again omitting the sinking fund
items, the enormous sum of $17,346,823.
That sort of financiering, continued for
a few years, would bankrupt even a
Standard Oil trust.
Corruption and waste have been con-
spicuous in Pennsylvania state govern-
mental matters for very many years,
but it was not until Beaver’s adminis-
tration began, in 1887, that the looters
got things down fine and began stealing
and squandering by wholesale. TUn-
doubtedly there were moneys unneces-
sarily expended from 1883 to 1886 inclu-
sive under Pattison, but the total ex-
penditures were nevertheless comp=ra-
tively modest. The following, taken
from the reports of the auditor general,
show the total expenditures during that
period on current account—that is, less
interest, loans redeemed and United
States bonds purchased: ;
1583... vs ‘ sieasinsuraiine yas sven l, 330,978
ASR: onsiitenss mevreninisbevenns 4,383,515
AS85 Laine halts aes ave ree 5,068,782
Q8BG ciionnns sessssssnicesnins ee... 4,367,751
Total .ccoienis iva cesseneees.. 518,157,024
Average each year..............$4,539,256
During the same period there were
state loans redeemed, including the
premiums paid thereon, aggregating
$3,290,427, and United States bonds pur-
chased under the Humes’ act amount-
ing to $5,305,814. These items are not
included in the above total.
As an exhibit of how the machine has
learned to get away with the taxpayers’
money since then, the following ex-
hibit of the yearly expenditures under
Hastings, added to the actual surplus
left over from 1894 in the general fund,
and the deficit that will show at the
close of 1898 will be found edifying:
The 1894 SUrDiNS........s.:.0... $3,807,747
The 1895 actual expenditures...13,402,962
The 1896 actual expenditures...11,004,517
The 1897 actual expenditures...12,768,515
The 1898 estimated exp........17,073,452
The probable deficit............ 2,762,834
Total Sal See bt ares $60,820,027
Average per year 1895-9S..... $15,205,006
Average per year 1893-96..... 4,539,256
So that the Hastings administration
has cost the state more than ten and
one-half millions of dollars each year
over and above the yearly cost of the
first Pattison administration.
Again, I say, financiering of that sort
weculd quickly bankrupt even a Stand-
ard Oil trust. What are they going
to do about it? They don’t know them-
selves. And, except for the disastrous
effect it is apt to have upon the/pros-
pects of Republican success in Novem-
ber, when the facts become generally
known, as they certainly will be, they
don’t care much. They are just now
most concerned regarding the threat of
certain school districts to test the
state’s right to hold moneys that have
been appropriated to their use and that
are due under the terms of the law.
If that test should be made and the
decision be against the state, it would
not be surprising to see the treasury
issuing orders at no distant day in
payment of salaries and other current
expenses. Of course, if that result can
be avoided, it will be, and in the hope
of avoiding it the treasury officials are
busily engaged in devising schemes to
get more money out of the corporations
as tax on their capital stock. ete. This
will be done bv raising the assessments
as made in the auditor general's de-
partment, and if that plan will not
work. then they will be prepared with
a bill, to accomplish it. which they will
urge upon the legislature next winter.
If that legislature is an anti-machine
body, as is now hoped. it will address
itself rather to lopping off expendi-
tures than to devising new tax schemes.
It is really amusing that ‘‘Boss’” Mar-
tin should be iauded as a reformer.
What Wanamaker says and what
Swallow says all goes to prove that
Jenks should be elected.
All the “Pluck me store” proprietors
in the field are candidates on the Re-
publican ticket. There are Thropp in
the Bedford and Woodin in the Colum-
bia district running for congress as
Republicans.
The Philadelphia Times says that
two influential Democratic papers are
out for Swallow. One of them is a Pop-
ulist paper and the other a side organ
in a county where there were but 1,105
Democratic voters in 1896. A larger,
brainier and in every way better Demo-
cratic paper in the same county is
straight for the ticket. The voters are
in the same boat.
Treasury Balances.
Their Manipulation in Debauchery of our Politics—
How a Beneficent Democratic Law Operated to the
Profit of the People and Was Surreptitiously Set
Aside by the Machine—The Proof That Democrats,
When They Are In, Do Real Reform Work.
The state treasury balances, whetner
real or fictitious, have never since 1888
fallen below $3,687,035 and have gone
as high as $6,679,854. According to the
reports of the auditor general and state
treasurer they have been, for the last
ten years, as follows :
1888 rereecacse snseacecncnsens..$3,637,085.65
1889 sessnssaraaes cess. 3,969,5687.53
1890 .cueceer arrcreveseseinnass—4,426,045.45
AB ccernsreein soccrecenseess. 6,619,3654.55
389 ..cieceeener cessenaees .. 6,000,644.95
1893 ..eeues ceccreeceesreases..5,830,308.07
1894 .eceaees srerenecseiriessss 5,014,642.18
1895 seenss ceirinciienssenvess HA29,654.07
1896 ...ccevvenveneesns. cesses «+ D,062,604.19
1897 cveeverrrccencncessoneesss 5,136,700.02
AVErage ..... seeeceessee...$4,923,767.66
These are the balances at the end of
each fiscal year. The monthly balances
are approximately the same. No money
is kept in the treasury. It is all in the
banks. Here we have, therefore, an
average of about $5,000,000 constantly
in the favored fiscal institutions. This
is so large a proportion of the total re-
sources of many of them that financiers
say a sudden withdrawal of the whole
line would create something like a
panic. Indeed, that reason has more
than once been put forward to stay re-
forms intended to prevent the carrying
of such balances, by cutting down taxes
when the balances have been real, or
requiring that the money be paid out
when they are manufactured. When
banks are without adequate money re-
sources of their own, depositing with
them ceases to be safe.
It is notorious that the machine has
been in large part maintained from in-
terest privately paid on the deposits
to its leaders. Smedley Darlington, of
the collapsed West Chester bank, open-
ly admits that he paid such interest,
and glories in it.
Responding most reluctantly to popu-
lar protests against the outrage and de-
mand that it cease, the legislature of
1897 passed the act requiriaz the pay-
ment of 11% and 2 per cent interest to
the state.
The state treasurer selects the de-
positories with the approval of the
board of revenue commissioners. The
members of this board are the auditor
general (Quay machinite) the state
treasurer (Quay machinite) and the sec-
retary of the commonwealth (the head
of the Martin machine). And since
most of the depositories are with the
Quay machine, it will be seen that that
machine has everything in connection
with this business nicely within its own
control.
The best possible proof that this mat-
ter of the state balances has been a
scurce of unusual profit to the favored
banks, and that they have been willing
contributors to the support of the ma-
chine, in return for the favor of the
deposits, abides in the fact that no
word of open protest has been made
against the new law (which went into
operation on the first Monday in May of
this year, 1898) and that there is almost
as urgent a call on their part, to be per-
mitted to continue as depositories as
ever. Possibly the law will curtail to
some extent the machine gain there-
from, and that of the individual bene-
ficiaries. But the money is worth to
the banks that carry it more than the
11, and 2 per cent they are required
to pay for its use, and it may be safely
assumed that the machine leaders are
not unaware thereof. There are stories
current in Harrisburg and elsewhere
that banks have paid, as bonus to those
acting as intermediaries to secure de-
posits, sums in excess of 1%, and 2 per
cent. And, while it might be some-
what difficult to legally prove these al-
legations, no one familiar with the do-
ings ‘on the Hill” of recent years can
he found to doubt their accuracy.
It is the boast of the machine lead-
ers that the state has never been to any
serious extent a loser through the fail-
ure of banks carrying state deposits.
Where such failures have occurred the
loss is alleged to have fallen upon the
treasurers and their bondsmen, or upon
the wealthy machine politicians who
have afterwards felt it incumbent upon
them, or been in effect compelled, to
make the treasurers and bondsmen
geod. , The act of 1897 inaugurates a
new order of things in this connection.
Section 4 of the act provides that the
state treasurer ‘shall not be held perso-
nally liable for any moneys that may
be lost by reason of the failure or in-
solvency of any bank, banking institu-
tion or trust company, selected as
aforesaid.” Hereafter, therefore, burst-
ed banks, if there be insufficiency in
the bank’s bonds or default in their
bondsmen, will mulct the treasury and
the people instead of the treasurers.
The act referred to is a concession to
popular opinion created largely by
Democratic platforms, Democratic
newspapers and Democratic stump ora-
tors, but it is far from being as safe
for and profitable to the state as was
an act originating with the Democrats
in 1883, and passed by the legislature
of that year and approved by the then
governor, Robert E. Pattison. That act
was known as the Humes’ sinking fund
act,and provided that when state bonds
were not to be had the surplus moneys
in the sinking fund should be invested
in United States bonds. It was the cus-
tom in those days to carry the big end
of the balances in the sinking fund,
presumably because, when moneys go
fnto that fund, there is no legal way of
getting them out again, except to pay
the state’s bonded debt, and having
large sums there insured large sums for
distribution among the hanks. There
were about $2,500,000 then in the sink-
ing fund, and not quite as much in the
general fund. Senator Humes (Demo-
crat) the father of the act, pointed out
that $2,000,000 of the sinking fund bal-
ance, which was not needed to take up
bonds, could be utilized to save the state
during the term the bonds then out-
standing had to run from one to three
and a half millions. The bill was fierce-
ly fought by the retainers of the Re-
publican machine in both houses, and
did not pass the lower body until the
night before the adjournment. when it
did not have a single vote to spare.
However, as already stated, it was
signed by Governor Pattison and be-
came a law. For eight years it remain-
ed in operation, and it is the testimony,
both of those who had to do with the
execution of the act and of the books,
that it operated largely to the advan-
tage of the treasury. It hrought the
oéate considerably more than 13 or’ z
per cent on its moneys that would oth-
erwise have been farmed out to the
banks gratis, and it involved absolute=-
ly no possibility of loss.
Its repeal was not actual, but vir-
tual. It was not manly, but tricky,
after the manner of all the doings of
the machine. In 1891 legislation was
had largely lessening the flow of money
into the sinking fund, so that there re-
mained in that fund practically nothing
to be invested under the Humes act.
This was not because the balances car-
ried were any less. In fact, they were
larger in that year and the year fol-
lowing than ever before or since. But
they were kept mainly in the general
fund, and the banks got them again,
and the machine treasury and the ma-
chineites reveled correspondingly.
Here we have the convincing proofs
that, when the Democrats are in, they
do real reform work, and that the
great ado recently made in so-called
independent reform circles touching the
debauchery of our politics through ma-
nipulation of the state deposits is a
very old story to the workers of the
Democratic party.
The Padded Pay Roll.
Mr. Wanamaker, in Reply to Chairman Elkin, Gives
the Names and Record of Some of the Men Who
Were on the Roll.
In his Media speech Mr. Wanamaker
said:
“Chairman Elkin, for shame. Dare
you stand up and assert that all the
politicians who were on the padded
pay roll performed any service to the
state? Dare you assert that Philip
Gori, of Shechequin, Bradford county,
who was appointed to pay a political
debt the machine owed to the now
discarded Louis Piollet, and who drew
from the padded pay roll $1,080, ever
performed any service to the state?
“Dare you assert that James R.
Greiner, of Luzerne county, now serv-
ing sentence in the Eastern penitenti-
ary for murder, who, as a political re-
ward from the machine, received nearly
$1,000 from the padded pay roll, and
who visited Harrisburg but three days
during the session, performed any ser-
vice to the state?
“Dare you assert that Jonathan
Jones, of Schuylkill county, who testi-
fled under oath in a libel case at Potts-
ville in November, 1897, that his name
was placed cn the padded pay roll by
Senator Covle, a Quay senator, who
drew for him $900, though he, Jones,
was not once in Harrisburg during the
session, performed any service to the
state?
“I have in my possession other names
that were on the padded pay roll, and
the amounts of salary they received,
and stand ready to furnish before a
court of record indisputable proof that
these men performed no labor for the
state, and that the money was paid
as political rewards.
“I am discussing Mr. Elkin as a
public official, and not as a private in-
dividual, and all interrogatories are ad-
dressed to him as the official head of
an organization.
“Chairman Elkin, though you have
been declared an unfaithful state offi-
cial and have been dismissed for cause
from public office, and though your at-
tempted defense is a complete confes-
sion of your guilt, and your explana-
tions, in the light of historical facts,
have convicted you of the grossest mig-
representations, still,” under the prin-
ciple of law that grants immunity to
a coplotter who turns state’s evidence,
and gives testimony that will result
to the good of the public, there may
yet be left a chance for you to save
yourself, in some degree, if you will
give to the people of this state the
inside history of that fatal indemnity
bond transactiom*
What It Costs.
To Run the State Department Under Quayism, as
Compared With the Costs Under Democratic Man-
agement.
Here are some figures showing une
cost of certain branches of the state
government under the appropriation
acts of 1883 and 1897 respéctively, the
former having been the nearest ap-
proach to a Democratic year the state
has had since the war:
Executive offices .....$517,006
Legislative expense .. 541,111
Judicial expenses 967,000
Printing and binding. 605,863
$1,613,971
724,828
1,342,682
1,130,984
$2,630,980 $4,722,465
These figures need little explanation.
They show that in fourteen years, un-
der the unbroken direction of Republi-
can lawmakers, executive departments
have been multiplied, salaries increased,
riew and useless deputies and clerks
employed and contingent funds padded,
until from a half a million, our execu-
tive expenses have swelled to a mil-
lion and a half for each two years.
They show that while the number
of senators and members and the al-
lowances for mileage, stationery and
postage are the same as in 1883, by in-
creasing the already large enough force
of clerks and other employes, by add-
ing enormously to contingent expense
tc fee party favorites, by awarding
pay for regular committee services, by
creating whitewashing and fraudulent
investigating committees (whose per-
quisites were not vetoed), by piling
up the cost of contested elections, etc.,
they have swelled the charge upon the
people for holding a legislative session
about $200,000, or over 35 per cent.
They show that the expenditure for
printing and binding the often worse
than useless state publications has al-
most doubled since 1883, although the
actual cost of doing that kind of work
has bean very materially reduced in
the interval.
They show that even the bench has
been made to contribute to the imposi-
tion largely by laws that multiply the
number of judges beyond all reason
and then making statutes that enable
some of them to add almost 50 per cent
to their legal salaries by holding court
in other districts in years when, in or-
der to keep up with the trial lists, they
must have other judges come and hold
court in their own districts.
They show, in brief, that under Re-
publican rule, the system is rotten
from core to rind, and that there is but
one chance for real reform, which lies
in electing a Democratic executive ad-
ministration and a Democratic legisla-
ture. 3
The king said ‘‘I rule all.”’
The preacher said ‘‘I pray for all.”
The lawyer said *‘I plead for all.”
The soldier said ‘I fight for all.”
The workingman said ‘‘I pay for all.”
Legislative Employes.
How Their Number and Cost Have Grown Since the
Democrats Had a Voice in the Matter—A Dead
Swindle in the Thing—Extra Clerks und Employes
Paid for Twice—The Chief Clerks Defy the Law's
Limitations as to Contingent Expenses, Etc.
The number and cost of the officers
and employes of the two houses of the
legislature are justly objects of much
criticism. If the public business were
expedited by the constant increase of
the number of this class of hangers
on, with the attendant large expense
involved, there would be no complaint.
But it is plain that so large a force is
not needed. Many of them do nothing
at all, practically, to earn the money
they draw from the treasury. Some
of them spend but little more than as
much time in Harrisburg as will suf-
fice to sign the requisite vouchers and
draw their pay. Those that are at hand
are so numerous that they crowd each
other and are in each other's way.
There are certain periods of the
session at which some of the
clerks, notably those in the transcrib-
ing rooms, are required to work hard,
and even excessively, but this is com-
pensated for by the far more numer-
ous other times, when they have little
or nothing tn do. Outside of two or
three in each house, none of them put
in as much time, or render as much
service, as would be exacted from
them in private or corporate employ
for much less remuneration.
Up to and including 1883 the force
was large enough in all conscience. It
is not easy to dig out of the records
—they are generally in so unsatisfac-
tory a state as to details, and change
their form so frequently from year to
year—with absolute accuracy, just the
information of which one is in search.
But, in so far as can be gathered
from the reports of the apditor gen-
eral and the general appropriation acts,
the senate in that year had 41 officers
and employes and the house, which was
Democratic, 37. The very next legis-
lative year (1885), however, the number
in the house was increased to 58 regu-
lars and two extras, making 60 in all.
There was no need or reasonable ex-
cuse for the jump. The 7 clerks of
1883 did as much work as the 10 of
1885, the 6 pasters and folders of 1883
put up and sent out the documents as
promptly as the 11 of 1885, and the 10
pages of 1883 served the personal needs
of the members as faithfully and fully
as the 15 of 1885. But there was de-
mand for more sinecures to compen-
sate the ‘“‘workers,” who had repaired
in 1885 the damage the machine had
suffered at the hands of the Demo-
crats and Independents in 1882, and
they had to be provided.
There were no apparent increases of
the force in either body for the ensuing
10 years, the 41 sufficing in the senate
and the 58 in the house. But in 1895
came an enormous jump, the number
in the senate being increased to 47 and
that in the house to 69. In fact, ex-
cepting the ‘extra employes,” which
gave rise to the indemnity bond scan-
dal, there were no more in 1897 than
in 1895. It was the legislature of the
last named year that was the primary
offender in this regard, notwithstanding
the fact that it was scarcely noticed
by the gentlemen who were so indig-
nant and outraged by the perform-
ances of 1397. And in connection with
the 1895 employes in the senate, there
is something singular. An act of March
6 of that year authorizes the chief
clerk to appoint an executive clerk
at $1,500, two additional transcrib-
ing clerks at $7 per day and two
additional janitors at the compensa-
tion usually allowed that class of em-
ployes. These appointments were made,
and the auditor general’s report shows
that the salaries stipulated were paid
to the appointees direct from the state
treasury. But it shows also that $3,700
was paid to the chief clerk for the ‘“‘sal-
aries of additional officers and em-
ployes under the act of 1895.” Who did
that $3,700 go to? Not to the execu-
tive clerk and the others lawfully,
though needlessly authorized, for they
got their money from the treasury on
the regular pay rolls. Who, then, got
it? Are we not right in saying that
it is difficult to determine from the rec-
ords how many officers and employes
there are? E
There is a very loose and entirely
unconstitutional process resorted to
in both houses to provide for extra
employes and for their compensation.
Section 10 of Article III of the consti-
tution, which article covers the sub-
ject of legislation, says:
“The general assembly shall provide
by law the number, duties and compen-
sation of the officers and employes of
each house, and no payment shall be
made from the state treasury or be in
any way authorized, to any person, ex-
cept to an acting officer or employe
elected or appointed in pursuance .of
law.”
Section 16 of the same article is to
the following effect: ‘““No money shall
be paid out of the treasury except
upon appropriations made by law and
on warrant drawn by the proper offi-
gers in pursuance therof.”
Yet, on the last day -of the session
of the house of 1897, Mr. Keyser of-
fered and the house passed the follow-
ing resolution:
“Resolved, That the payment for ex-
tra; labor in the house of representa-
tives for session of 1897, including com-
mittee and transcribing clerks, not pro-
vided for by special items in the appro-
priation act, be paid by the chief clerk,
on vouchers approved by the speaker
and attested by the chief clerk, war-
rant to be issued by the auditor gen-
eral to the chief clerk or the state
treasurer therefor.”
The house has no constitutional right
to vote money in that way. The state
treasurer has no right to issue his war-
rant upon any such authorization. The
auditor general has no right to pass
such an account. The question of law-
ful right or constituionality will never,
however, amount to a deterrent when
the machine has a purpose to fulfill,
so long as the machine remains domi-
nant in the legislature. There is but
one cure. The Democrats must cap-
ture the body named. The Democratic
house of 1883 was as well, if not better,
served by the 37 lawfully authorized
clerks and employes as was the Re-
publican house of 1897 by 69, nearly, if
not twice, the number. The $27,886 paid
during the regular session of 1883 for
the service was sufficiently extrava-
gant. The $74,197 paid in 1897 for no
better« service, if as good, was more
than half of it thrown away. And yet,
if Hastings had permitted it, the ap-
propriation would have been $12,500
more. that being, in round figures, the
SE mn
cui UL ‘NE ZOVErnor’s ‘vetoes in tmrs
line. The increase in the cost of the
genate clerks, etc., has been just about
as great. The appropriation for 1883
was $23,700. The appropriation for
1887-88 was $47,710, and was $54,976 be-
fore being trimmed by the vetoes. And
if William A. Stone should be elected
governor and a majority of machine
legislators returned, every item vetoed
by Hastings will be reinserted in the
general appropriation bill to cover “a
deficiencies in salaries, etc.,” passedand
approved.
The contingent funds of the senate
and house indicate a like degree of
fraud and extravagance, even if we
admit that the money is actually ex-
pended as professed. In 1883 an appro-
priation of $4,000 for the senate and
$5,000 for the house, to be paid out by
the chief clerks, was considered ade-
quate to cover all contingencies. In
addition, the librarian of the senate
got $1,200 for recess postage, etc., and
the resident clerk of the house got
$1,050 for the same purpose.” In 1897
the appropriation for the senate for
contingencies was limited to $8,925, and
for the house to $13,580. In 1895 the limi-
tations were $7,700 for the senate and
$10,800 for the house. Notwithstanding
this, however, the actual expenditures
by the chief clerks for contingencies
in that year were $8,500 in the senate
and $14,741 in the house. In the senate
the limitation was exceeded by $800
and in the house by nearly $3,900. It is
not so much the amounts thus expend-
ed that is to be deplored as the impu-
dent and daring disregard of constitu-
tion and statute law that characterized
them, and the evidence it affords that,
under Republican sway, all the depart-
ments of the state government are in
constant collusion to loot the treasury
and swindle the people.
Colonel Stone’s Ten Thousand.
His Fee Three Times Larger Than the Amount Recov-
ered—The Accusation, the Admission, and All the
Details.
In the Philadelphia Press of April 18,
1897, was an address delivered by Major
George W. Merrick, of Tioga county,
who was a schoolmate of Colonel W.
A. Stone, the Republican candidate for
governor, in which he said:
“I have undertaken to state from the
stump that Colonel William A. Stone,
now of Allegheny, late of Tioga county,
is the slated candidate for governor;
that his candidacy was agreed upon
by the powers that be some two years
since; that he had served the machine
faithfully, during the whole of his po-
litical life; that he said to me fre-
quently during the past eight years
that his great ambition in politics was
to be governor, but that he could not
be a candidate for office until the ‘Old
Man’ said so, but he would be when he
did say so; that two years ago in the
senatorial campaign, he made the de-
claration that his relations to Mr. Quay
were such that his political fortunes
would rise or fall with those of Mr.
Quay. I asserted also that I did not
deem him a safe man for governor to
stem the tide of corrupt approach upon
the state treasury, since in private life
he had charged the state $10,000 for
collecting $2,400.
“Mr. Stone has undertaken to deny
the last statement. Addressing a
meeting at Royersford, April 13, he
said: ‘It has been said that I charged
the state $10,000 for a case which re-
turned $2,400. I never made a charge
against the state.” By this statement
I understand Colonel Stone to deny the
allegation that he received a fee of $10,-
000 for collecting $2,400. Does he mean
to charge me with accusing him false-
ly? I will submit the record, and you
may judge, gentlemen, who is guilty
of duplicity.
“In Colonel Stone’s speech last week
in Williamsport he said, alluding to this
charge: ‘I was pained when my old
comrade, Mr. Merrick, stated here in
the city of Williamsport, not for the
purpose of helping me but to injure
me, that I had charged the state of
Pennsylvania $10,000 for collecting $2,-
400. This is an old story and retold in
the campaign against me in 1890, but
I never lost a vote. I never denied the
facts, and I do not deny them now,
but I never presented a bill or made
any charge. That is 12 years ago, and
is known to everybody in Allegheny
county, and now Major Merrick is re-
viving that old tale.’
“Well, gentlemen, that is a pretty
broad admission of the truth of my
charge against Brother Stone, but Mr.
Stone is mistaken when he charges me
with reviving this old tale. On Dec.
14, 1897, a clergyman of Wellsboro wrote
him as to the truth of this allegation,
asking for information, saying: ‘In ref-
erence to the past record to which you
refer, I would say that for some years
there has been a report current here
that once in a case in which you col-
lected a claim for the commonwealth
in the amount of about $3,000 you
charged and received a fee of $10,000;
the story seems to be well supported.
If it is true it would suggest some doubt
as to the propriety of placing you in
the high and responsible control in the
office you seek in the affairs of our
commonweaith. I shall be pleased to
receive an answer to this question.’
“In reply to this letter Candidate
Stone, in a letter dated Washington,
Dec. 20, 1897, from which I now read,
said: ‘The matter of the fee which you
speak of occurred nearly 12 years ago.
My fee was not fixed by me, but it was
fixed at the request of the auditor gen-
eral by attorneys in Pittsburg at $10,-
000, which the state paid me. Of course
I am aware that my enemies will raise
many objections to my candidacy,which
will appear from time to time in the
newspapers, but it is not my purpose,
nor has it been my practice, to pay at-
tention to them.’ ”
Major Merrick is a prominent attor-
ney. He is a Republican and a na-
tive of the county where Candidate
Stone was born, and lived many years.
He was Stone's schoolmate and his
friend in later years. He was every-
thing that would have inclined him
to be Stone’s friend. Charges of so
grave a character, coming from such
a source, would be a serious business,
even without Stone’s admission of their
truth, ag above avowed.
—————————
——The governess was giving little Tom-
my a grammar lesson the other day. ‘An
abstract noun.’’ she said ‘is the name of
something which yon can think of but not
tonch. Can you give me an example?’
Tommy—A red-hot poker!
——Subseribe for the WATCHMAN.
Quayism in Figures.
How Four Years of Machine Rule Converted a Real
Surplus of Nearly Four Millions Into a Real Defi-
ciency of Nearly Three Millions—The Figures
From the Records That Support Mr. Jenks’ Charge
That the State Treasurg Is Bankrupt.
Mr. Jenks has charged, upon the
stump, that the state treasury is bank-
rupt and the astounding fact has not
been and cannot be denied. Here are
the figures, from the official records of
the machine state treasurers, that
prove it:
GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS.
1895 ........ ro vasesssesennssnss 31,746,401)
1896 cssnennee ssesnssionesenesnres 12,265,756
31897 ...coni00 severe sesesvevens 12,475,070
A808 iis sees Tecrervinsevss 11,191,628
TOtAl ..... versecissscsecsves $47,678,865
GENERAL FUND PAYMENT.
1893 ........ avian sas ssees vanes 315,402,002
1896 ........ evivs esas susennnsss 11,004,517
3897 veviiiiivin ssnans sisnnisnnns 12 C05:010
1308. (iiarss crnvesenerenensesenee YT UIS,452
Total ...... ....... ceeeeeees. $54,249,446
The figures for 1898 are the official es-
timates of the state treasurer. He cal-
culates the probable receipts, and he
puts down the actual obligations. By
the end of the year, therefore, if all the
obligations are in the meanwhile met,
the state will have expended, during
the four years of Governor Hastings’
administration, $6,570,681 more than its
income.
But there was a real balance left over
from Governor Pattison’s last year,
1894.
Auditor General Gregg (Republican)
spoke of that balance in his annual re-
port for that year as follows: After
noting that the nominal balance was
$5,014,942, he said: “Of the amount paid
into the state treasury (as personal
property tax) there remains to be paid
back to the counties $1,273,578.09. This
should properly be deducted from the
reported balance, in order to ascertain
the real, which deduction being made,
would show a real balance of $3,807,-
747.62.
“While we may point with pride to
the existence of this large balance,
it must not be too readily assumed that
it will prove an unmixed blessing. Its
very existence will invite applications
for its appropriation to purposes neith-
er necessary nor deserving. The reve-
nues of the state are at present ample
to meet its expenses if economically ap-
plied.”
And then this Republican auditor
went on to recommend the appropria-
tion of the surplus ‘to some needed
public use, whose benefits should be
enjoyed by the entire people, without
placing’ upon the commonwealth an
annual charge therefor.”
Inheriting this ‘real surplus” of $3,-
807,747 from its predecessor, and ex-
pending in four years $6,570,581 in ex-
cess of its income, the Hastings ad-
ministration has exhausted the surplus
and left the state $2,762,834 in the hole.
With “money to burn,” so to speak,
four years ago, the treasury now has,
if its debts were paid, nearly $3,000,000
less than nothing.
This is Quayism fittingly illustrated
in figures.
State Reform.
Democrats No Eleventh Hour Converts to the Doc-
trine—Pertinent Extracts From Their State Plat-
forms.
The Democratic.party is no eleventh
hour convert to state reform. For
years it has been presenting the ugly
facts and urging amendment. When-
ever it has had opportunity it has loy-
ally redeemed its pledges, to the full
Lmit of its power. The following will
be interesting reading in this connec-
tion:
In 1874 the Democrats of the state in
their platform denounced the Republi-
cans for fostering corporations to the
detriment and injury of the great agri-
cultural interest; for having introduced
frauds and corruption into the depart-
ments of the state government and
among the state officials generally, and
for having failed to dismiss them when
exposed and convicted. They demand-
ed a greater economy and the lopping
off of every needless expense.
In 1882 the Democrats elected their
state ticket and secured a majority in
the house on a platform devoted to
state issues and condemning Republi-
can theft and reckless expenditure.
In 1885 the party thus said: “The
long continued abuses and spoliations
of the state treasury and the defiance
of laws by its management make es-
sential a radical reform so that large
sums shall not be accumulated by tax-
ation of the people to be distributed
among the favored depositories of the
state.”
The convention of 1887 denounced the
Republican legislature for “its failure
to pass the state revenue bill, which
was urged by nearly all the people in
the commonwealth and which, by its
failure, made the people pay a million
of dollars annually that should and
would have been paid by corporations.”
It denounced, also, ‘the failure of the
administration to attempt any correc-
fon of the wrong doing or exposure of
the fraud or criminal neglect, as con-
fessing the supremacy of ring rule in
Pennsylvania.”
The convention of 1890 again urged re-
form, condemned the Bardsley steal,
and, following the election of the
Democratic governor, Robert E. Pat-
tison, the monies stolen by the said
Bardsley and others were restored to
the state treasury.
A Rallying Cry Everywhere.
All along the northern tier of coun-
ties, throughout the oil regions and in
the iron manufacturing districts the
name of the Democratic candidate for
governor is a talisman to conjure with,
a rallying cry for multitudes of honest
men who stand stoutly together for
honest politics. The western Pennsyl-
vania Democrats and independents are
flocking to the standard of George A.
Jenks because they see in his candi-
dacy an assurance of deliverance of
the state from the clutches of unclean
hands that have grasped power only
for plunder and personal advantage.
Wherever intelligent public opinion
finds expression throughout the state
there is ready and ample concession of
Mr. Jenks’ fitness for the office of gov-
ernor, and especially at this juncture,
when there is need for a stern executive
hand at Harrisburg to restore old
landmarks of honest state administra-
tion.—Philadelphia Record.
| description the WATCHMAN office is the
place to come.