The Treasurer-Elect Can't Find Bondsmen for a $400,000 Bond

J. W. Maple, treasurer-elect, is still searching for bondsmen. The predicament in which he finds himself has resulted in an undercurrent of feeling, on the part of his adherents, against the county commissioners; and a few persons have said that the board has acted arbitrarily in fixing the amount of the bond, and has done its utmost to enhance Mr. Maple's difficulty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The commissioners have acted strictly in accord with precedent and have given Mr. Maple all the benefit of a liberal construction of the law. The provisions are clear and explicit.

Section 211, General Statutes, reads as follows in reference to the bond and oath of treasurer: "The county treasurer, before he enters on the duties of his office, shall take an oath faithfully to discharge the duties of his office as prescribed by law; he shall also, before he shall enter upon the duties of his office, give a bond to the county, in the penal sum of not less than double the amount of funds liable to come into the hands of the said treasurer during his term of office. The amount to be fixed and the bond to be approved by the county commissioners of the proper county."

In Section 4, Session Laws of 1893, is a further provision governing the bond, as follows: "The county treasurer of each county in which there is or shall be a city of the first class, is hereby constituted ex-officio collector of city taxes of such city, and before entering on the duties of his office he shall execute in favor of such city, and file with the clerk thereof, a good and sufficient bond in an amount equal to that of the bond required of him as county treasurer. Such bond to be approved by the mayor of such city or other authority thereof by whom the bond of the city treasurer is required to be approved."

In conformity with territorial and state enactments the bond of county treasurer to the county during the past four terms has been increased in amount three times. The figures are as follows: 1887-1888, $100,000; 1889-1890, $100,000; 1891-1892, Phelps's first term, $150,000; 1893-1894, Phelps's second term, $300,000; 1895-1896, $400,000.

The tax levies for the years covered above were as follows: 1887, $240,183.54; 1889, $439,823.73; 1890, $652,286.54; 1891, $880,999.58; 1892, $712,388.66; 1893, $894,170.04; 1894 not completed. The above figures do not include city taxes, nor other receipts from fines, costs, fees, proceeds of sale of bonds, etc., aggregating a large sum. For example, on April 16, 1894, there was in the treasurer's hands $431,407.35 cash on deposit and in the office; and in addition to that sum there was at least $50,000 in checks, paid in on account of taxes, awaiting segregation until tax receipts could be issued. Had the commissioners fixed the bond of the incoming treasurer in the full sum authorized by law, the bond would be nearly $1,000,000 instead of $400,000, under the most liberal construction that could be had. If, however, they had insisted on the strict letter of the law, they could have demanded a bond double the amount likely to come into the treasurer's hands during the full term of two years, instead of a single year, which would have made the bond about $1,500,000.

There appears to be prevalent an impression that the amount of the bond has been fixed at $800,000, but that is incorrect. The bond to the county, as indicated above, is $400,000. The law requires that the sureties must justify in double the sum for which they become responsible. Practically the same board of county commissioners who fixed Mr. Maple's bond, increasing it by $100,000, also fixed the bonds for the two preceding terms. They raised Treasurer Phelps's for his second term, thereby doubling it. If the commissioners are to be censured at all, it would seem that they have placed the amount of the bond too low under the law.