their approbations if approved of they drew an
order on the treasury, in favor of the claimant
for the amount. This order was taken to the
Auditor General, countersigned by him, and entered
on his books, and the claimant gave a re-
ceipt for it, and then, and not until then, the
treasurer was authorised to pay the money to
the claimants. Thus we find in the very origin
of this government, similar provisions made to
guard the treasury, to those in the article before
us, and a treasury department was then organ-
ised with as much wisdom, security and fore-
sight as any that exists in this country. Sir, it
is one of the many instances in which we had
better return to the good old paths of our fath-
ers. The Auditor General continued to dis-
charge his important duties with various modi-
cations until 1802, when by chapter 100, of that
year, a law was passed, requiring him to furnish
the treasurer with statements of the balances
due to the State on his hooks, and authorising
the treasurer himself for the first time, to re-
ceive payment of these arrearages. From time
to lime, laws were passed, diminishing the du-
ties of the Auditor General, conferring some of
them on State's agents, specially and) tempora-
rily appointed to collect the arrearages due by
State debtors, imposing others of them on the
treasurer, and leaving others of them unprovided
for. By these means most of the old arrearages
were collected or abandoned; some of the sub-
jects of revenue and disbursements ceased to
exist, and under these and other changes in the
laws, a gradual introduction of a new financial
arrangement in the treasury was brought about,
dispensing in a great degree with the duties of
the Auditor General, until the year 1827, when
that office was finally abolished. The small
amount about that time received into the treas-
ury, the certainty, simplicity, and notoriety of
the sources whence it came, and the regular and
well ascertained disbursements made by the
treasurer for years, at and about that time, may
be ajustification of the course of legislation then
pursued. From 1827 to the present, the treas-
ury of the State has continued under the exclu-
sive control, without any limitation or restric-
tion whatever of the treasurer of the State. To
leave the State treasury in its present condition,
when we are organizing a new government
would be perilous to the State, and neglectful in
us. The article under consideration proposed to
remedy this state of things, and to protect the
State from the dangers to which it stands ex-
posed. This is to be done by requiring the
treasurer to receive and disburse the moneys of
the State, upon warrants drawn by the comptroller
and not otherwise, without which war-
rant signed by the comptroller, no acknowledg-
ment of money received in the treasury shall be
valid. These two officers, the treasurer and
comptroller, are independent of each other
holding office by a different mode of appointment
by a different tenure, and hence not likely to
collude together—both of them report to the
Legislature all their proceedings, and each of |
them holds his books, accounts, &c., subject to
the examination of the Governor, whose duty it
is to examine the same.
It is said that at every session of the Legislature,
its committee on claims examine the
hooks of the Treasurer, and his vouchers of pay-
ments and settlements, and that this is the best
security for his fidelity. The obvious reply to
this, is, that during all the previous year, and
since sessions have been biennial, the previous
two years, the Treasurer has had unrestricted
power over the Treasury, and could have done
with the State's money just what he pleased.
This examination is no prevention, of errors or
frauds, though it may be the means of detecting
them if committed. It is therefore no answer to
the charge, that the Treasurer of the State is
without check or limitation, in the control of
the State's money, to say that you can detect his
errors or his unwarrantable acts, a year or two
after they are committed. But let us look unto
the sufficiency of this mode of detecting errors
and frauds. The Treasurer receives and dis-
burses between one and two millions of dollars
yearly. The money is received from some hundreds
of State debtors and agents, and paid to
some hundred of creditors of the State, under
the various laws of this State, with all of whom
settlements of conflicting and contested items
are to be made by the Treasurer, and these debt-
ors and creditors, the vouchers of which are
submitted to this committee of claims. What
information do these vouchers give to the com-
mittees, which would enable them to do more
than see that the sums corresponded; that certain
sums agreed upon by the Treasurer and the
debtor or creditor as due, was received by the
one party, and paid by the other? But who ex-
amines into the cases, to see that the charges or
credits were legal—that there has been no error,
mistake, or collusion—that the papers executed
are all genuine—that the State has been properly
protected in these dealings? No one. The Trea-
surer's statements are received as true—his settle-
ments and vouchers as legally and faithfully made,
and the committee have discharged their duty if
the Treasurer exhibits prima facie vouchers cor-
responding with his settlements. To speak of such
an examination as this, as a reliable means of
detecting errors or frauds, is to attribute to
the committees powers men do not possess, and
to deny to those who may be disposed to commit
frauds on the State, any degree of cunning or
caution.—No collusion between the Treasurer of
the State, and the public creditor or debtor, if
concocted with any degree of skill, could ever
be detected by such an examination of these
committees. They have not the requisite ma-
terials for such an examination, nor the time nor
the knowledge of the laws, if the materials were
before them. The examination of the commit-
tee therefore I look upon as no prevention what-
ever of errors or frauds, that may be committed
on the Treasury of the State, and as a very in-
adequate means even of detecting any such errors
or frauds, if they may previously have been
committed. |
