Arkansas State Gazette And Democrat

The Secretary of State and Public Printing.
A typographical error escaped our notice, in our paragraph of the 5th instant, until too late to correct. By our issue last week was too much trouble not to notice it. It occurred in the article entitled "Secretary of State and Public Printing." There our type made us say "the two items," when we intended to say "two of the items" of fraud.
The items, "which charge still at the Auditor's office," are two orders of the Secretary of State; one for $541, and the other for $1,000. It is.
Now, in this case, there is really little difference whither we had said, "the two items" or "two of the items," as the "two do items" allude to are actually to be seen in the Auditor's office. The distinction is about as nice as that between Tweedledum and Tweedle-dee. But the Banner of 9th inst., seized on it with an avidity which entitles it to rank as a critic with the man who, once pounced on a pulloon for refusing to fight; objected to disputation by an illiterate than because he had incorrectly spelt the word matiron: "r i: -3: r Ji
If the Secretary of State and Public Printer have already swindled the State out of hundreds of dollars, and, by corrupt official collusion, are still attempting to perpetrate other frauds on the Treasury, it becomes our duty, as faithful conductors of the press, to expose them; and it matters little to the people, whose money has been plundered, whether we commence by exposing the "two items," or "two of the items" of fraud. so that we expose all that come to our knowledge.
For the credit and honor of our State, most heartily do we wish our exposure could be confined to only "two items," instead of "two of the items" of more than a dozen frauds, perpetrated by those two worthies, that have already come to our knowledge, and we fear we shall find more than double that number before we get through with them. It is no gratification to us to expose these frauds; but, when we know them to exist, it is our duty to expose the authors of them to the just indignation of the people, whose money they have plundered; and this we shall do, regardless of their anathemas.
In looking into a small portion of the official accounts of those two functionaries, we were astonished to find that a system of fraud has been practised, by them, on the Treasury, that we had no conception of, and the turpitude of which has rarely been equalled by the shameless manner in which they have avowed and defended their fraud.
The Banner denounces our exposures of these Frauds as "unwarranted attacks upon members of the democratic party:" What shameless impudence! What is it treason against the democratic party, to denounce the frauds of men in office, because they claim to belong to the party? If so, the sooner honest men leave it, the better. But we are not of that opinion. Better, we think, to "denounce the Augean stable," and at once hurl such plunderers from The places they disgrace. This may not suit the Banner clique, as sufficient has already come to our knowledge, to prove that one of the means that has been resorted to, to keep up the family grocery, has been the carrying on of a systematic game of swindling of the State Treasury, for a long time past.
This for spiking and advertising—and, in more than one instance, by not only charging double and treble for work, but charging twice for the same work done by the Banner office—and all certified as correct by the Secretary of State or the State Land Agent. We do not wish to be misunderstood.
We charge, That these things have been repeatedly done through the connivance and agency of D. P. Porter, Secretary of State, and L. B. Gaines, State Land Agent—and we mean to prove them to the satisfaction, not only of the democratic party, but, of the people, of the State.
The guilty parties; and their adherents, will no doubt denounce us as traitors to our party, for exposing their sins; but the honest portion of the Democratic party will approve our course and sustain us. With that we shall be satisfied.
But, to return to the argument in the Banner, of 9th inst., evidently written for the purpose of diverting attention from the Frauds of Porter and Whiteley. If its argument means anything, it is, that the Secretary of State had not the entire control of the appropriation for printing ordered by the Legislature for the session of 1848-49; and yet the act making it, and approved 10th Jan., 1849, expressly provides that "all such expenses shall be payable on the orders of the Secretary of State." Can language be plainer? The plain phraseology of the law took the control of the appropriation out of the hands of the Auditor, and placed it in the hands of the Secretary of State.
And, that it was so construed by the latter officer, in proof of which the Gazette is atated in the account published in the Banner—that a portion of his bill for printing the Acts and Journals was paid on two orders drawn by him—one for $500 and the other for $1,000; and the further fact, that the committee on the Auditor's and Treasurer's books gave the same construction to the act, as they approved the transaction, at the last session:
This, however, is not the only instance, by several, in which the Legislature has made appropriations to be drawn on the orders of the Secretary of State; and we understand that it has not been usual for that officer to file vouchers in the Auditor's office, showing in what manner moneys thus drawn by him have been expended. Why this has been so, we do not understand. The Legislature, during the session of 1848-49, appropriated $500, payable on the orders of the Secretary of State, to pay for repairing the public buildings. He issued his orders, and drew the money—but the archives of the Auditor's office contain no voucher or account to show in what manner he expended it. We very well recollect that an attempt was made, during the last session of the Legislature, to require him to settle up this matter, and to produce vouchers showing how the money was expended. But it was smothered up. and the session was permitted to close, without bringing him to a settlement. Other appropriations, or large amounts, have also been drawn in the same manner, by the same officer, and no accounts ever rendered to show how they were expended. We trust another Legislature will not be permitted to pass by, without a thorough investigation being made as to the manner in which he has expended the various large sums of money that have been intrusted to him.
It is pretty evident that the last Legislature had a suspicion that the hands of the Secretary of State were not as clean as they ought to be, or they only made one small appropriation of $250, payable on his orders, for repairs on the public buildings—leaving the accounts of the public printer to be regularly certified by the Secretary of State, and then filed in the Auditor's office, to undergo the usual scrutiny as other claims on the Treasury.—This is as it ought to be, and we contend that no money ought to be drawn from the Treasury, without filing vouchers therefor in the Auditor's office, to show how, and for what purpose, it was expended.
Having made this article longer than we intended, we will close by adding to it "Two Items" more of the swindling transactions of the Secretary of State and Public Printer, on the State Treasury.
They will be found in the two following bills, which may be found on file in the Auditor's office:
State of Arkansas, Office of Sec of State, .
1851
To M. A. Whiteley, Pr.
June 2. To Ady. grist to change mode of voting and ascend distribution of ed. 000 acre fund—28 squial week
—$98.03
I certify that the above laws were published by order of the Legislature, and the account is correct. The Auditor
t.
"ww7"
"Stdrdr on Konbor a wummt n
74 17, 14.73xt5:
LA WHITELRY."
rosl.
"TLA, Whhricj, Dr.
Jm7, Tr ianitior
ma 4Ast h tegil the bolhx
trim the sin exet rk"
Irart
Lexwmmimix
daduro+-2i o4 I x, :23
Aryltay, tihn ahe note ietoir he fr piolos idmc by "
ts Ki thie Grtryrd Aorontir, IhAuiiit wW borwe i w2
At on lhe Toaue
in Aaonr cr I,, A. Whteriey, Aor turnt!
wreo(, yrmble ox o thr tumti
W Eud sO Syoowtire do—rtnrnt.
Jna Mawal, isl, : L, Ul i ckEee, &ayos State.
RocW a( Dhe Amdion, n wasrot om tre Tronwit, fur u)
:7
1: L. A. WaTtLkY."
By comparing the above two accounts, it will be seen that they are both for the self same advertising—thus charging twice for the same service.
But this is not all: By Mr. Whiteley's contract for executing the Public Printing. he contracted to do it at 50 per cent. less than his regular prices. Has he done so? No. Instead of doing so, he has charged double the regular prices, instead of one-half, and been paid fifty-six dollars for what he was only entitled, under his contract, to Fourteen Dollars—thus, through the collusion of the Secretary of State, defrauding the State out of Forty two Dollars, in these "two items."
The proof of what we state above may be found in the Auditor's office, over the signatures of Greer & Whiteley. Comment from us is unnecessary. The public may draw their own conclusions.
We have plenty more behind, of the same sort, and shall bring them to the light in due time.