The Wheeling Daily Intelligencer

BELMONT COUNTY FINANCES.

An Open Letter from Auditor Longley to John H. Heaton.

John H. Heaton,

Editor St. Clairsville Gazette.

Sir: In your issue of date September 28, in reply to some allegations of the St. Clairsville Chronicle, concerning the mismanagement of the financial affairs of our County; you charge me with being the author of an article in the Chronicle, under the caption "Belmont County Treasury Robbed." Permit me to say that, since I took charge of this office, December 13, 1868, I have not written a line for the Chronicle, except official advertisements which I was required to have printed. Possibly I am too sensitive in this particular, but I have thought that, occupying a responsible office, conferred upon me by the people of the County, it was no part of my duty to my party to use my position for partisan purposes. I am still of that opinion, but your wanton and unprovoked attack upon me convinces me that I have to some extent put a stop to your filching of money from the County Treasury which you never earned and which you had no legal right to draw, has provoked you to notice it in this way, and to refute the assertions contained in it.

I will notice the allegations made by you against me in the order in which they occur.

It is said that, on a certain occasion I "with another," was appointed a commission to examine into the condition of the Treasury, that I certified to having been occupied twenty-five days, that the statute allows two dollars per day for such service, and that I drew from the Treasury "one hundred dollars for three days work." You are "assured it could have been done in that time," and you have "no evidence that he (Longley) divided this hundred dollars with the other gentleman."

On the 5th of February, 1869, Mr. Ross J. Alexander and myself were appointed a committee to examine into the condition of the County Treasury. This was at the close of Mr. Erwin's first collection, and the Auditor (Mr. R. M. Clark) appeared to have some anxiety as to the probable condition of affairs. We were urged to make the most thorough and searching scrutiny. The books of this office and the books, papers and funds of the Treasurer were in such condition that a great deal of hard work and considerable time had to be devoted to the work in hand, in order to make a satisfactory investigation. That commission did twenty-five days work, and made, too, the most thorough investigation ever attempted in this county since the passage of the law under which it was acting. I was paid $50 for that work. I never "demanded one hundred dollars from the Commissioners for the same work." When I got the order for my pay from Auditor Clark ($50), I did say to him that, considering the amount of work we had done, and the character of the work: we were not more than half paid. That's all there is of that.

You then undertake to account for the large sums paid for printing and advertising between Sept. 1st, 1869, and Sept. 1st, 1871, by alleging that these extraordinary expenditures were caused by the building of pikes. Mr. Heaton, no advertisement of pike assessments was printed in either of these years. "Tabular statements of live stock" will account for part of it.

You say "the statute fixes the price for printing the delinquent land list." It does no such thing. Brother Heaton. It fixes a price beyond which Auditors shall not go in paying for that work, but by no means says it shall not be done for less, as you have construed it. "There shall hereafter be allowed to the publishers of newspapers for advertising the delinquent and forfeited lists of the several counties a sum not exceeding the following rates," &c., (S. & S. page 20) You say I procured the publication of the delinquent land list, last winter, for one hundred dollars less than it cost the previous year. True, I did procure the publication of a larger list at a cost of $100 less than was paid you for a similar publication the previous year. You think this a very serious offense. You charge me with having robbed the Chronicle of one hundred dollars. Mr. Wilkinson, publisher of the Chronicle, in his issue of Jan. 11th, 1873, speaking of that very advertisement said: "If Mr. Heaton and his excellent family must starve because we are willing to take a fair price for advertising, then let the hand of charity be extended; but we protest against his slandering us because the key of the County Treasury has been put up out of his reach. Last year he charged $1 for publishing the delinquent tax list. This year we get about half that sum, and will take any amount of similar printing at the same rates."

"And now for another attempt to defraud the printer by a violation of duty on his part," say you. You then relate how you printed a tabular statement of live stock, how "we presented our bill," and how "payment was refused by the Auditor." In 1869 the Legislature passed an act requiring the Auditor of State to transmit to the Several County Auditors a tabular statement of the number of horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, mules, and asses, "which statements the several County Auditors shall furnish for publication in their several counties." (Ohio Laws, vol. 66, p. 27.) I gave a copy of this statement to Mr. Wilkinson, of the Chronicle, at the same time telling him distinctly that the law did not authorize me to pay for it and that I would not pay for it. Did I not "furnish it for publication?" You were never furnished it by me, but printed it on your own motion, and then impudently demanded pay for it. I refused to pay you, and after I had plainly told the Commissioners that, in my judgment, it was a matter over which they had no control, and that I would not obey an order to pay it, if they made it. After you had been kindly told by Commissioner Armstrong that the Board had no power in the matter, you insulted the Commissioners by asking if they "proposed to be dictated to by this Auditor?" And then you went out, telling me you were going out to Columbus and would "see about this thing." We all recovered from the dreadful shock as speedily as could be expected under the circumstances, and then proceeded with the transaction of business.

You say if Auditor R. M. Clark received too much money from the County Treasury, I should make a bill for the sum illegally drawn from the treasury, present it to him, "and let him refund." Good Brother Heaton, I have no authority to collect this money of Mr. Clark. I am not authorized to sue him and recover any illegal fees drawn by him. The Commissioners are. They were advised of this matter at their June session. "But we have no idea Mr. Clark has received a dime more than he is entitled to," say you. The exhibit printed in the Chronicle so far as the amounts drawn by Mr. Clark are concerned, is correct. He was paid an average of $6,000 a year salary as Auditor. At no time during his incumbency, except of the year of the land appraisement, could the legal fees and salary reach $5,000. If I understand the article in the Chronicle, the charge is not that the laws allow too great a salary to the Auditor, but that Mr. R. M. Clark charged and received greater fees than are allowed by law. That he did receive, except in the year of the land appraisement, about $1,000 per year more than the most liberal construction of the law will allow is unquestionably true.

Again you say: "Auditor John Longley announces through the last Chronicle that he has paid off $53,396 of the Belmont County debt. Grant paying off the National debt and Longley our home debt, we are getting along swimmingly. The people need not pay any more taxes
John is paying it all off himself. What a clever fellow." Mr. Heaton, "Auditor John Longley" has announced no such thing "through the last Chronicle:" but the fact that that amount, of the $187,000 of debt upon our County, Bridge and Building funds at the time I took charge of this office, has been paid as stated in the Chronicle, cannot be successfully controverted. I have not yet paid all of it out of my own pocket, however, Brother Heaton. Some of your Democratic office holders contributed somewhat to that end, in the shape of jury fees, unclaimed costs, &c. The debt of our County has been reduced $48,000 in round numbers, since I took charge of the Auditor's Office. This was accomplished by a faithful collection and disbursement of the revenues of the county. For instance, of licenses, fines, rents, &c, due the county I collected, from Nov. 13th, 1871, to Sept. 1st, 1872, and paid into the Treasury on warrant $5,927.55, while in two years from Nov. 13th, 1869, to Nov. 13th 1871, Auditor Clark, from similar sources, collected but $2,508.43.

Again, the tax duplicates of last year were so full of errors that it became necessary to add them over again. About $3,000 were saved the County in that way. That is, if those duplicates had not been added after the collection was closed, the Treasurer would have made about $2,000 on account of errors.

Mr. Heaton, it gives me no pleasure to indite these things against your friends. I have taken no part in these controversies, but have proceeded quietly in the discharge of my duties. You have assailed me and challenged me to answer. I assert that there has for years been an organized and systematic robbery of our County Treasury in this matter of public printing. You have grown rich off the spoils, and now when an officer set over the Treasury by the people dares to resist your monstrous demands and endeavors to protect a people who have so long been forced to contribute of their hard earnings to enrich you still further, you try to bully and frighten him into complying with your demands, and, failing in that, insult and abuse the Commissioners because they decline to do what they had no legal right to do. You may fluster and threaten, but, so far as I am able, I am resolved to put a stop to this and all other species of robbery of our County Treasury. Some of my own party friends, hereabouts, can testify that I am no partisan in this particular.

Very Respectfully,

John B. Longley,

Auditor Belmont Co.

Auditor's Office.

St. Clairsville, Sept. 28, 1872.