Newspaper Page Text
No. 31-
Vol. L.
MILLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1869.
TVl. O 33. 2v2I 3E <Sc S O 1ST,
EDITORS AND PROPRIETORS.
Trr
A l> VKRTI3ING-
.,.-tion. S 1 'to.
per annum, in Advance.
-Persquare oftenliues, each
Merchants and others foi all
!“i)juu ,s -> ver $ 25, twenty-five per cent. off.
LEGAL ADVERTISING.
Ordinary's.—Citationsfor lettersol ad
ministration guardianship , &c $ 3 00
)L'« ei
J 0(1
00
..ead notice 2 00
-^l.cationtorlettersof dism’n fromadm’n 5 00
a jjiicati° ut ’ or letters of dism’n of guard’n 3 50
implication for leave to sell Land 5 00
‘- !.. e to Debtors and Creditors 3 00
of Land, per square of ten lines 5 00
«. Id of personal, per sq., ten days 1 50
6 ir ,iTs —Each levy oiten lines, vr less.. 2 50
q n'tga^e sales of ten lines or less 5 00
Tat O’ '"lector’s sales, per sq, (2 months) 5 00
,jilts--foreclosure of mortgage and oth-
1 er monthly’s, per square
Estray notices, thirty days
Tributes of llespect, Resolutions by Societies,
Obituaries. *fcc.,exceeding six lines, to be charged
■ transient advertising.
•S*Sales of Laud, by Administrators, Execu-
' a . )r Guardians, are required by law, to be held
on the first Tuesday in the mouth, between the
hmrs often in the forenoon and three in the af-
rn 10U , at the Court-house in the county in which
t l ie property is situated.
Notice of these sales must be given in a public
'azette 40 days previous to the day of sale.
N T otiee*for the sale of personal property must be
riven in like manner 10 days previous to sale day.
Notices to debtors and creditors of an estate
must aiso be published 40 days-
N >tice that application will be made to the
(join t of Ordinary for leave to sell land, must be
published for two months.
Citations for letters of Administration, Guar
di mship, &c., must be published 30days—tor dis-
mission from Administration, monthly six months ;
j jr dismission trom guardianship, 40 days.
Kilos for foreclosure of Mortgages must be
published monthly for four months—for cstablish-
j,, r [„st pipers, for the full spuceof three months—
for-•> upetling titles from Executorsor Adminis
trators, av he re boud has been given by the de
mised, the full space of three mouths. Charge,
si 1)0 per square of ten lines for each insertion.
Publications will always be continued accord
; U £ to these, the legal requirements, unless oth
cnvi.se ordered.
Schedule of Macon & Augusta It. R.
Leaves Camak, daily, at 1 xi.30 P. M.
• ‘ Milledgeville (’>.30 A. M.
Arrives at Milledgeville 4.20 P.M.
“ Camak 9.00 A.M.
Passoiwersieaving Augusta or Atlantaon Day
Passenger Train of Georgia Railroad will make
Lose connection at Camakfor iutennediatepoints
on the above road, and also for Macon, Ac. Pas-
seuTersleaving MilledgevilLeat 5.30, A. M. .reach
Atlanta and Augusta same day,and will make
dose connections at either place for principal
pnintsin adjoining States. .
1 E. W .COLE, Gen’l Supt.
Augusta,January 7,1808
4 tf
SOUTH WESTERN R. R. CO.
OFFICE, MACON, GA., March‘J4th, 1868-
Columbus Train — Daily.
Leave Macon 5 •
Arrive at Columbus 1 LL> A. M.
Leave Columbus 7™ L'
Arrive at Macon 6-20 P- M.
Etij'aula Tram — Daily.
Leave Macon r nn p m"
Arrive at Eufaula
Leave Eufaula
Arrive at Macon 4.50 P. M.
Connecting toilli Albany Train at Smith ei/lc
La.ave8mitl.ViUe '
Arrive at Albany 311 \ - "•
Leave Albany
Arrive at Smithville----- 11.<>0 A. M.
Connecting with Fort Gaines Train at Cutkbert.
Leave Guthbert r
Arrive at Fort Gaines £-40 P. M.
Leave Fort Gaines 7.05 A.M.
Arrive at Cuthbert 9.05 A.M.
Connecting with Central Railroad and Macon
& Western Railroad Trains at Macon, and Mont
gomery & West Point Trains at Columbus.
VIRGIL POWERS,
Engineer & Superintendent.
Schedule of the Georgia Railroad.
IAN AND AFTER SUNDAY, MARCH 29th
W 1868, the Passenger Trains on the Georgia
Railroad will run as follows:
DAY PASSENGER TRAIN.
(Daily, Sundays excepted.)
Leave Augusta at ^
“ Atlauta at - -j A- M.
Arrive at Augusta 3.30 P. M.
“ at Atlanta li.10 P. M.
NIGHT PASSENGER TRAIN.
Leave Augusta at 3 45 P. M.
“ Atlauta at 6..45 P. M.
Arrive at Augusta 5.30 A. M.
“ Atlanta 4.00 A.M.
BERZELIA PASSENGER TRAIN.
Leave Augusta at 4.30 I. M.
“ Berzelia at 7.00 A.M.
Arrive at Augusta 8.45 A M.
“ at Berzelia — 6.15 P.M.
Passengers for Milledgeville,Washington anti
Athens,Ua.,inusttake Day Passenger Irain from
Augusta aud Atlanta.
Passengersfor West Point, Montgomery, Sel-
ma, Mobile and New Orleans must leave Augusta
ou Night Passenger Train at 3.45 P. M., to make
close connections.
Passeugers for Nashville,Corinth, Grand Junc
tion , Memphis, Louisville and St. Louiscantake
either train and make close connections.
Through Ticketsaud Baggagecheckedtlirough
to the above places.
Pullman’s Palace SleepingCars on all Night
Passenger Trains- .
E . W. COLE, Gen lSuperint dt.
Augusta,March 26,1868 4 tf
ihtLcmta. &L fUfest J^Polnt
RAIL ROAR.
Day Passenger Train—Outward.
Leave Atlanta 4.45 A. M.
Arrive at West Point 9.50 P. M.
D_ay Passenger Train—Inward
Leave West Point 1.30 P. M.
Arrive at Atlauta 6.20 P. M.
Night Freight and Passenger—Outward.
Leave Atlanta 4.15 P. M.
Arrive, at West Point 11.40 P. M.
Night Freightand Passenger Train—Inward.
Leave West Point 4.20 A. M.
Arrive at Atjanta 11.30 A. M.
SIlcltlqc af: r^chccLuLe.
OFFICE SOUTH CAROLINA R. R. CO., )
Augusta, Ga.. March 25, 1868. )
O N AND AFTER SUNDAY, 29th March,
1868, the Mai and Passenger Trains of this
Hoad will leave and arrive at through Central
depot,Georgia Railroad, as follows:
Morning Mail and Passenger Train
^ °r Charleston, connecting Train for Columbia,
South Carolina, Charlotte Road, and Wilming
ton and Manchester Railroad.
Leave Central Depot at 5.50 A - M.
Arrive atUentral Depot 3.30 P. M.
Night Pussengef !e Accommodation Train
^ °r Charleston, connecting with Train for Co
lumbia,and withGreenville andColumbiaRail-
road:
Leave Central Depot at 3.50 P. M.
Arrive atCentr&l Depotat 7.00 A. M.
H. T. PEAKE,
% General Superintendent
Tmpoktant correspondence.'
STARTLING DISCLOSURES.
The Comptroller General and the Stale
1 'reasurer.—Major Bell's rejoinder to
Dr. Angier.
Atlanta, Ga., July 22, ’69.
In the New Era. of lliis morning, ap
peared a communication from the State
Ttreas urer commenting upon my letter
to the Governor, published in the In
telligencer of the 21st insl. Having no
desire for a controversy with the Treas
urer, 1 shall not repeat here the argu
ment in my letter to the Governor. My
confidence in its soundness is not shak
en by the keen attack of the Treasurer,
and 1 shall leave his reasoning and al
so mine to the decision of the public.
There are'some points, however, in his
communication that I deem it proper
to notice. 1 stated in rriy letter lo the
Governor that “I had not at any time,
to my knowledge, approved a warrant
drawn upon a lund specially appropri
ated and restricted to some other pur
pose,” and he quotes this language,
and in order lo refute the assertion,
calls my attention to warrants 141 and
142 in favor of Samuel Weil, Foreign
Commissioner, and No. 190, in favor of
George N. Lester, Domestic Commis
sioner of Immigration, which he alleg
es were charged to the 23d section of
the General Appropriation Act of 1869.
He further alleges that these warrants,
countersigned by me, were refused at
the Treasury, and were afterwards
changed to the specific appropriation
by the Governor through the influence
of. one of the Secretaries of the Execu
tive Department and myself. Now,
supposing all this to be correct, it does
not by any means refute my statement,
which he quotes, for it is well known
tlmt the appropiiation made by said
23d section, is anything but “special”
or “restricted.” it is as broad, indeti
nite and general as an appropriation
possibly could be. What the Treasu
rer intends show is, to ihat. I approved
warrants that ought lo have been drawn
on a special fund, which were really
drawn on this 23d Section, and adduc
es this fact to prove that the statement
quoted, is not true, to-wit: that I had
not approved any warrant drawn on a
special fund restricted to some other
purpose than that for which the war
rant was drawn. He savs the war
rants were drawn on the 23d section,
and 1 approved them so drawn,- and
therefore it is not true that I had noL at
any time approved a warrant drawn
on a fund specially appropriated and
restricted lo some other purpose. But
I have shown that the 23d section
makes no special appropriation, and
therefore he has failed, in my judg
ment, to prove his point. This is all
upon the hypothesis that his statement
is correct. But I am not satisfied of
its correctness. The facts, unfortu
nately for him, do not sustain the Treas-
urer’s allegations. On referring to my
warrant blotter, I find that the two
warrants in favor of Mr. Weil were
approved and entered on the 29th May,
1S69, and charged to the Act of 18th
March, 1869, under the head of “Spe
cial Appropriations of 1869.”
I feel confident that neither of these
warrants was ever changed at my sug
gestion, either before or after their ap
proval, and that their entry to-day
stands precisely as it did on the day
they were approved and entered. In
reference to No. 190 in favor of Col.
Lester, the facts, in substance, as I
understand them, are these : When the
warrant was first presented to me for
approval, 1 declined to approve it; but
after an interview with the Governor,
and he had pointed out lo me the fact
thaL the act of ISth March, 1S69, was
referred to in the body of the warrant
as my authority for approving it, altho’
the 23d section was referred to at the
fool of the warrant, I then considered
the reference in the body of the war
rant the proper authority, and that at
the foot as mere surplusage; and al
though the warrant was not drawn pre
cisely in the form that I preferred, J
was unwilling, upon a mere technical
ity and matter of form to keep a faith
ful and meritorious public officer out
his just dues, and so approved the war
rant.
•1 think there was some change after
wards made in the warrant to meet the
objections of the Treasurer, and it is
highly probable that, in furtherance of
the same object before expressed, that
Col. Lester should not be further de
layed in drawing his salary, I did ex
ert my feeble influence in having the
warrant put in such a shape as the
Trea.-urer would be willing to pay it.
The statement of the Treasurer, that
I protested against the issuing of war
rants drawn on the printing fund for
advertising Executive Proclamations,
&c., is not wholly incorrect, but unex
plained, would lead to erroneous infer
ences. My first impressions were that
such warrants should not be drawn on
the printing fund, and I so expressed
myself to the Governor. But upon
taking the opinion of the Attorney Gen
eral, and upon a more extended ex
amination of precedents, anti more es
pecially those of the learned and up
right Jenkins, who, while this section,
1043, of the Code was in full force,
gave his warrants for what proclama
tions and orders he had published, up
on the printing fund, I became satis
fied that it was my duty to approve the
Governor’s warrants drawn upon the
printing fund. As to the number and
importance of these proclamations, it
was not for me to determine—the law
cast that responsibility upon the Gov
ernor, and when he saw proper to di
rect a newspaper to publish them, and
the account was properly certified to,
and a warrant drawn upon a fund not
exhausted, given iri accordance with
enstofh when the law was the same as
it is now, and in conformity to the writ
ten opinion of the Attorney General. 1
approved the warrants, and believe I
did right under these circumstances in
so doing. The Treasurer refers to the
opinion-of certain eminent legal gen
tlemen lo sustain his course. I cannot
perceive how he is sustained by their
mere private opinions. They are em
inent lawyers and their opinions are
certainly entitled to great respect, but
this is simply their opinion and has no
binding efiecL whatever upon a public
officer, particularly when such opinion
is in conflict with the official opinion
and acts of equally as eminent lawyers.
No one will doubt the legal ability of
Governor Jenkins, and I am of opin
ion that if it were so very clear that
warrants should be drawn upon the
contingent fund, as the Treasurer con
tends, Gov. Jenkins would have not
have drawn his warrants on the print
ing fund. So, at last, the position as
sumed bv the Treasurer that such war
rants are drawn upon the ‘wrong fund,’
is simply his opinion.
The Treasurer further 3tales that he
is sustained by what he is pleased to
refer to as a resolution taken from a
report adopted during the last session
of the General Assembly, which he re
fers to as having been adopte I‘during’
the session of the last General Assem
bly, which would seem to imply that
it has the force and effect of law. Ac
cording to my recollection, no such
resolution was adopted .by the General
Assembly, and lam unable to find any
such resolution among the published
acts and resolutions of that body. If
my recollection is correct, what he re
fers lo was a part of the report of a
committee adopted by only one branch
of the Legislature; and not having
been adopted by both branches, it docs
not possess the binding effect of law.
Hence I cannot see how he is sustain
ed by this, in opposition to the authori
ty i have already referred to.
The Treasurer asserts, further, that
but for this section of the Code, 1043,
and his refusal to pay, the printing
fund would long since have been ex
hausted, and the public printing, in
cluding the Journals of both Houses,
have been suspended, or the Public
Printer have gone unpaid. Upon what
basis does the Treasurer predicate this
statement? I would remind him that
the sum of $20,000 has been appropri
ated as a printing fund for the year
1869, and that up lo this time, if my
calculation is correct, there has been
but $7,761 51 drawn upon it, leaving
the sum of $12,238 49 unexpended.
Let it be borne in mind that the $7,-
761 51 is the aggregate amount drawn
on the fund by the Governor, and that
this includes all that the Treasurer has
refused to pay, as well as what h.e has
paid.
Of that sum, a large portion has been
refused by the Treasurer, hence but a
small portion of the printing fund has
yet been paid out. But supposing he
had paid every warrant drawn upon
the fund and apptoved by me, there
would still be an unexpended balance
of the fund on hand amounting, as
stated, to $12,238 49. How then, I
repeal, would “the fund have long
since been exhausted,” had it not been
for ihc Treasurer’s refusal to pay the
warrants ?
But, I am taking up more space than
1 intended, and will close by saying,
that I am willing to risk the judgment
of the people ol Georgia and the Gen
eral Assembly in .sustaining the action
I have taken on the warrants under
consideration. Respectfully,
MADISON BELL,
Comptroller General.
Treasurer Angler's Reply to Major Mad
ison Bell.
The late correspondence between
the Governor and the Comptroller Gen
eral, and their reckless disregard of
law in issuing and countersigning un
authorized warrants, and- their rash
and wild extravagance, gives evidence
of a conspiracy between these two offi
ces to make inroads upon and deplete
lhe Treasury.
The Treasurer, without stopping to
notice the Comptroller General’s “sup
positions,” feelings of confidence,”
“unwillingness,” “thoughts,” “proba
bilities,” “feeble influence,” “impres
sions,” precedents,” “beliefs,” “reeol-
•eetions” and “calculations,” (most of
which are inis-“caiculations,”) in his
teeble and pointless reply to the facts
set forth in the Treasurer’s response to
the Comptrollers defense of the Gover
nor, will proceed to show that the
Comptroller not only countersigned
warrants drawn upon the “wrong lund”
and also warrants drawn when no ap
propriation existed lo cover them, but
that he countersigned warrants drawn
in direct opposition to special legisla
tion and appropriation.
Part of Section 1, of the General
Appropriation Act for 1869, provides
for the salaries of the “Secretaries ol
Executive Department, not exceeding
two for the year 1869 and further,
“that his Excellency the Governor, be
authorized lo employ such additional
assistance in the Executive Department
as he may deem necessary at any time,
not to exceed one,” yet in direct viola
tion of this special provision by the
General Assembly, the Governor has
drawn warrants for no less than five
clerks independent of the two Execu
tive Secretaries. These warrants were
all countersigned by the Comptroller.
The Governor and Comptroller; try to
practice subterfuge and deception in
drawing and countersigning these war
rants, as follows :
Paragraphs Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive ol
Section 72, of the Code of Georgia,
specify the duties of the Executive De
partment. These duties should be per
formed by the legal clerical force of the
Department, which, as will appear by
above legislation, is only to Executive
Secretaries, anil one extra clerk, yet
the Governor draws his warrants in
favor of these additional unauthorized
clerks, upon the 23d Section General
appropriation Act, 1869,” at the same
time making reference to one or more
of the above paragraphs of Section 72,
specifying the duties of the Executive
Department. Following this as a rule
of action—allowing a clerk for each
specific duly required of the different
offices—the Secretary of State, Comp
troller General and Treasurer could
each claim more than one dozen clerks
to transact the business of their res
pective offices. We further give as an
evidence, that the Comptroller coun
tersigned warrants “drawn when no
appropriation existed to cover them,”
warrant No. 48, July 3, 1869, in favor
of John L. Conley, on the 23d Section,
for five hundred dollars, for extra ser
vices rendered in State Library. Sec
tion 23 provides “that in all oases
where the performance of any service
or labor is required by law, for which
no provision is made for compensa
tion,” &c. Part of Section 1, of .Gen
eral Appropriation Act for 1S69 spec
ially provides that twelve hundred dol
lars shall be the salary of the State Li
brarian for the year 1869.
The Comptroller aiso approved war
rants in favor of S. W. Beainl to the
amount of four hundred am I eighty
dollars, for services as assistant in State
Library, when no provision is made for
any assistant in that department.
As an evidence that these two offi
cers are conspiring to deplete the State
Treasury, over eleven thousand dol
lars has been drawn by the Governor
on the contingent fund, “to defray in
cidental expenses of Executive Depart
ment,” We leave the public to judge
what these “incidentals” are. . The
balance ol the warrants <>n the contin
gent fund, amounting to over eight
thousand dollars, state the items that
they are for, such as Supreme Court
reports, stationary, postage, express,
charges - &c. There is remaining ol
the twenty thousand dollars appropri
ated as a contingent fund, less than
seven hundred and, fifty dollars, with
the year but little more than half gone,
and the items of heating, lighting
and guarding the Capitol, and many
other items, not charged to it, as has
been the custom of former Governors.
The Comptroller states, “if his re
collection is correct,” only seven thou
sand seven hundred and sixty-one 51-
100 dollars ($7,761 51-100) is the ag
gregate drawn on the Printing Fund by
the Governor. He very well knows,
“if his recollection is correct,” that be
sides this amount, ten thousand dollars
was advanced to the Public Printer,
by the last General Assembly, which
should have been charged as an ad
vance on the Printing Fund for 1S09.
But the Governor, probably wishing to
retain that Fund for his own patronage,
as shown in the multitude of useless
proclamations, hoping to subsidize the
press lo his use, disregarded all former
“precedents,” and disobeyed the in
structions of the General Assembly to
charge this amount to the Printing
Fund as an advance, and even vetoed
the Joint Resolution directing him to
charge the last advance to the Printing
Fund, and refused to change the war
rant after the House passed the Reso
lution over his veto by a vote of 95 to
31.
To these violent and illegal acts of
the Governor, the Comptroller gave his
approval, and there is no telling to
what extent they would have gone,
could the Governor have made the
Treasurer his “subordinate,” as be has
the Comptroller his tool.
The misfortune of the Governor is,
that when he was inaugurated, he
thought he had but to command to be
obeyed ; that all were his subordinates,
not seeming lo understand that this is
a government of the people, each offi
cer having his duties to perform and
being responsible for the same. Un
fortunately for the State, he has had
too many suppliants around him to do
his bidding.
We have been disposed to pass the
Comptroller by, as loo weak a vessel
to be disturbed, or made responsible ;
but if he choses to seek notoriety by
beiug.made the pliant tool of others, he
need-not be surprised if he finds his
garments scorched and his fingers
burned in the usage.
Respectfully.
N. L. ANGIER, Treasurer.
Atlanta, July 23, 1869.
Reply of the Comptroller General to the
Slate Treasure(.
Atlanta, Ga-, July 24th, 1S69.
The reply of Treasurer Angier to
mv communication in the Intelligencer
of the 23d inst., requires some notice
at my hands. I had taken no part in
the previous controversy between him
self’ and the Governor, desiring to
maintain amicable official relations
with both of them. In reply to an offi
cial communication addressed to me
by the Governor, I slated facts, when
the Treasurer replied to me I stated
facts again. The Treasurer now, with
out disapproving or denying those
statements, in a heal of passion, breaks
oil’into a personal attack upon me, in
charging a conspiracy between the
Governor and myself in making inroads
upon the Treasury. This accusation
would be alarming if my character
was at the mercy ol the Treasurer, but
1 console myself with the reflection
that no man who has any knowledge
of iny personal character, or my offi
cial conduct, will give the least credit
lo it. The Treasurer having been forced
to abandon the position first taken by
him in regard to the approval of cer
tain warrants, he abruptly breaks off
from ihese, to others which were not
under consideration. To follow him
up from one position to another, would
require more time and attention than l
can spare, were I disposed to do so.—
In reference to his charge that I have
countersigned warrants in favor of
Clerks in the Executive Department,
not authorized by law, 1 admit that I
have approved warrants in favor of
additional clerks vvhom^ the Governor
thought proper to employ on account
of the extraordinary pressure of busi
ness in that department, which were
drawn by authority of the 72d Section
of the Code, and it is also true that the
Treasurer has paid out money to satis
fy a claim for services rendered in the
same department, and by authority of
the same section. So, if it were a
crime in me to countersign the war
rants in such cases, it
be his rule of aciion ? His “sense of
pressure” caused him to “press” $55,-
000 of the State’s money out of the
Fourth National Bank, in open viola
lion of law, and the known will of the
General Assembly. This reasoning
would tend to throw the law entirely
Aside, and take the Governor’s “sense
of pressure” as a rule which in the lan
guage of more than one of his appoin
tees, “would bankrupt the Slate in less
than two years.”
The petty and childish excuse and
charge, by the Comptroller, that “if it
were a crime in me lo countersign the I
vindicalion of my course in this matter,
is before the public, and it is not nec
essary to repeat it. But what will the
public think when I utter the assu
rance that this immaculate Treasurer
paid these warrants without a murmur
down to as recent a period as the 8th
of December, 1863, and that I can
prove what I sav by his own report
which I now have before me.
On page 17 of this report under the
bead “Printing Fund” of 1868,” I ob
serve the first warrant, No. 304, in fa
vor of Dr. Samuel Bard, “for adver
tising Governors proclamations to July
warrants in such cases, it was equally I 24th, 1S68, 3149 00” Then follow;
was equally a
even one such
crime in him to pay
warrant.
As proof of the alleged conspiracy
between the Governor and rnyself, he
refers to the fact that the contingent
fund is nearly exhausted, when he
knows that the law gives me no con
trol whatever over this fund, the Gov
ernor alone having the authority to ap-
! ply it. The Comptroller has no right
to supervise ihe Governor in its appli
cation, as the Treasurer well knows.
A charge of conspiracy then, founded
on the fact that 1 have not saved a fund
over which 1 had no control whatever,
is too ridiculous to require further ref
utation. With equal propriety might I
charge the Treasurer with participa
tion in Ihe same conspiracy, because
he has paid the warrants on that fund
which he charges me with wrongfully
approving. His foolish charge against
me, however, shall not drive me to the
folly and absurdity 7 of preferring such
a charge against him. His reflection
upon my “weakness” is chiefly notice
able as an exhibition of his taste and
feeling. In my “weakness” I arn able
to vindicate my conduct in office a-
gainst all his aspersions, and I am not
aware that the occasion requires a
grealer amount of strength. A faith
ful and quiet performance of the duties
of my office, has been my constant aim,
land if it be “weak” to have aceorn-
j plished this without querulous and uti-
| dignified controversies with other de
partments of the Slate Government,the
charge “weakness” gives me no an
noyance. I have taken no notice of the
Treasurers assaults upon the Governor,
because it is no part of my business
to defend the Executive ol the State. I
have only undertaken to defend my
own office against the unfounded accu
sations of the Treasurer, and this I be
lieve 1 have done to the satisfaction of
all who understand the subject and are
disposed to dojustice. t
If the Treasurer can succeed in im
pairing my reputation with the preju
diced arid unfair, he is welcome to all
such trophies. Respectfully.
MADISON BELL,
Comptroller General.
Another Better from Dr. Angier.
The first statement made by the
Comptroller, in his article in Sunday’s
Intelligencer, that he had taken no part
in the controversy between the Treas
urer and the Governor, has no founda
tion in truih, and is a palpable contra
diction to his strenuous eflbrls with the
the members of the General Assembly,
in behalf of the Governor, in the mat
ter of the $35,000 illegally drawn from
the Fourth National Bank, New York.
The Comptroller says : “In reply
to an official communication addressed
to me by the Governor, 1 stated facts.”
What the Comptroller alleges to be
“facts,” are simply his own assertions
not supported by any legal authority.
In every instance, the Treasurer, has
quoted legal authority from the Court
itself, and from the distinguished Ju-
nst who revised the Code, to sustain
his argument, and this argument stands
unanswered and incontrovertible. The
Treasurer has not only established his
lirsl position, but gone beyond and es
tablished others, which have not been
denied, nor answer made to them by
the Comptroller.
The Comptroller says : “In refer
ence lo his charge, that I have coun
tersigned warrants in favor of clerks in
the Executive Depaitmenl, not author
ized by law ; 1 admit that I have ap
proved warrants in favor of additional
clerks, whom the Governor thought
proper to employ, on account of the
extraordinary pressure of business in
that Department,” &c. Where is his
authority for departing from law, and
letting the Governor’s sense of pressure
a crime in him lo pay even one such
warrant,” does not apply to the Treas
urer, for the warrant referred to as hav
ing been paid by the Treasurer was
first tejected l>y the Treasurer, but up
on the statement of one of the Secreta
ries of the Executive Department, that
the service had once been performed
by the legally authorized clerks in Ex
ecutive Department, but the records
having been “mutilated by Sherman’s
army,” as staled in the warrant, the
Treasurer paid said wairant, because
it was a re-performance of what had
already been done, and was out of the
ordinary duties of the Executive De
partment. The Treasurer has paid
some warrants of doubtful propriety,
among which isoneiu favor of the Comp
troller’s brother, by appointment of the
Governor, at the rate oi $1,800 per an
num, and in all cases involving doubt,
the holders of warrants have received
the benefit of the doubt, their warrants
in such cases being cashed.
The Comptroller states that “he
has no right lo supervise the Governor
in his application of the Contingent
Fund, as the Treasurer well knows.”
The Treasurer happens to know dif
ferently, and as the Comptroller by 7
this acknowledgement, shows an igno
rance of the duties of his office, the
Treasurer will quote the law for his
enlightenment. Paragraph 3, ol Sec
tion 94 of the Code, says : “It is more
over the duty oflhe Comptroller Gen
eral to auJit all accounts against the
Stale and allow or reject the same be
fore they are submitled to the Gover
nor.” Again, Irom Cobb’s Digest, page
1028, Sec. 1 : “From and after the
passage eff this act, all accounts exhib
ited against the State shall be audited
by the Comptroller General, and cer
tified by hint to be correct.” Sec. 2.
“When accounts, so audited and cerii-
fied by the Comptroller General, shall
be presented to the Governor, it shall
be his duty to order the same lo be
paid by a warrant on the Treasury.”
The wording of the law, shows that
the warrant must not be issued until
alter the claim has been audited by
the Comptroller General. It will be
seen no exception is made whether the
accounts are to be charged lo the Con
tingent fund or not, and we defy the
Comptroller lo find any law making
any exception to the Contingent Fund.
The Comptroller is quite fastidious
about our style of writing, but the
Treasurer has always thought it bel
ter to be plain in telling the truth, than
to practice duplicity with a smooth
tongue and lying lips, and he need not
think to avoid the force of truth by
writing his own praise. There are
some people whose feelings cannot be
shocked only by applying to them the
truth. Had the Treasurer been fully
aware ol his susceptibility on this point,
he might have, taken lime to smooth
the edge of this, to the guilty, fearful
weapon. Respect Iu I ly,
N. L. ANGIER,
T reasurer.
Atlauta, July 26, 1869.
Another Belter from. Maj. Madison Bell.
Atlanta, Ga., July 28, 1369.
The controversy between the State
Treasurer and myselt has not been
sought or desired by me, but, on the
contrary, I have endeavored, by every
means that honor and self respect woud
justify, to avoid it. This controversy
first grew out of a correspondence be
tween the Governor and this office,
elicited by a note of inquiry from the
former. In my reply, I stated that I
had not approved warrants drawn up
on a fund that was exhausted, or war
rants drawn upon the wrong fund, or
drawn when there was no appropria
tion to meet them. My reply was
eouched in as respectful language as I
could command, and even exhibited a
scrupulous abstinence from any dis
courteous allusions .to the action or
motives of the Treasurer, whatever.—
His first effort was lo prove that my
answers to the Governor’s interrogato
ries were not true, but having failed to
do this, his subsequent effusions are a
mixture of reckless assertion and per
sonal invective, which 1 do not propose
to notice, but as the Treasurer sets
himself up to be the only officer who
confines himself within legal bounds, 1
do propose to exhibit some of his in
consistencies, and to show that his ac
tions have not been in accordance with
his professions. And, as he has taken
die liberty to deal so unsparingly with
what he affects to consider the motives
that have prompted my official action
in the premises, he will pardon me it I
take a slight retrospect of his own.—
He referred to my approval of warrants
drawn on the Printing Fund to pay for
advertising, Executive proclamations,
orders, &c., as proof of his charge that
I had approved warrants drawn on “a
fund specially appropriated and re
stricted lo some other puqiose.” The
forty-seven more warrants for the same
species of service, and drawn on the
same fund, running through a period of
nearly four months, and tor a sum of
money amounting in the aggregate, to
over $6,500. Where were his scruples
then, and with a IP his boasted knowl
edge and legal acumen, why had he
not discovered during that period of
nearly four months, that it was a viola
tion of law to pay such warrants ?—
Why has he not explained to the pub
lic, while endeavoring to fix the ap
proval ol such warrants on me as a
crime, as a conspiracy to rob the Treas
ury, how it is that he was a participant
in the same crime by paying forty-sev
en of these illegal warrants, amounting
to the sum of $6,500 ; Let him also
explain how it happened that tie
became£o suddenly enlightened as to
the law, and so scrupulously conscien
tious as to stop the payment of such
warrants just about the time he had a
rupture with the Governor. Plain,un
sophisticated people would regard this
as rather a singular coincidence at least
and all fair-minded, unprejudiced men
would like to have it explained. Can
it possibU 7 be, that as long as l he Treas-
urer was on friendl} 7 terms with ihe
Governor, he was willing to unite in
the “conspiracy” and participate in
a violation of the law, but as soon as :t
breech occurred between them he
changed his course, run lor the sake of
the law, but for the purpose of annoy
ing the Governor by dishonoring his
warrants ? He was either ignorant of
the law and his duty as a public officer,
sis he now professes to undersiaud
them, or he knowingly and criminally
violated the law, (for it stood then pre
cisely as it does now) and in either
case he should come to the confession
al and make an atlonement for his er
ror, before he arraigns another officer
before the public for approving the 47
warrants that he paid.
In his laSt communication, which ap
peared in the Era of the 27th instant,
he again refers to my approval of war
rants in favor of additional clerks in
the Executive office, and triumphantly
asks, “Where is his authority for de
parting from law, and letting the Gov
ernor’s sense of pressure be his rule of
action ?” I do not notice this point now
with the view of again vindicating my
action in the premises—this I have al
ready done in former communications.
But I do so for the purpose of again
showing up the Treasurer’s inconsist
ency by introducing his own official
acts. I find, by reference to the rec
ord, that warrant No. 149, in favor of
N. L. Angier, for $832 55, drawn on
the 7th section of the appropriation act
of 1868, “fw stationary, printing, &c,”
was approved and entered on the 20th
of January, 1869. Then again, 1 find
that warrant No. 107, in favor of the
same, for stationery, exchange, tele
grams, express charges, See., and
drawn on the 23d section of the appro
priation act ol 1869, was approved and
entered on the lOth of July, 1369.—
Where was your authority, Mr. Treas
urer, “for departing from the law” in
these two cases ? Why was it not as
lawful to pay the warrant of Mr. Con
ley. the State Librarian, drawn upon
the same 23d section, for postage
stamps, drayage, &c., for the use of
his office, and for which he had ad
vanced the cash out of his own funds ?
His warfaat was in every respect sim
ilar to your own, yet you refused to
pay it because it was drawn on the
23d section. Let-it be understood that
the 7th section of the act of 1368 and
23d section of the act of 1S69 are the
same in substance, ft it was -contra
ry to law to pay Mr. Conley’s warrant,
where is the authority, Mr. Treasurer,
for paying your own ? What excuse
have you for breaking the law in your
own favor, and recognizing rt when the
interest of others are involved ? I
ought to mention, in passing, that Con
ley’s warrant w-as only for S4L 30,
while yours (the last named) was for
$785 40.
But again: The Treas urer has ar
raigned me for approving warrants for
’extra service, and goes out of his way
to allude specially to a warrant in favor
of my brother, which he styles as bein'*
oi “doubtful proprieu 7 .” 1 wonder
what he thought of certain warrants in
favor of his son, which he paid, and
where he finds h>s much vaunted “au
thority of law” for so doing. Now, I
assert, that the warrant in favor of mv
brother, to which I presume he alludes
was authorized by express provision ol
law. On page 186, published 1 aws of
1363, resolution No. 14 expressly au
thorizes me to have certain entries
transferred in my office and to employ
a suitable clerk to do the work. By
this authority I employed my brother,
and he executed the work to the entire
satisfaction of a Legislative Committee,
who examined it. Why then this in
sinuation that the warrant was of doubt
ful propriety ? But as the Treasurer
