The Lancaster gazette. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1846-1852, 1847-09-03
The AUDITORS Exhibit OF the Coun-
" Debt.


~ Debt.
In last weeks Eagle, we sec a com.
munication to the People ofthe county,
by the Auditor, pretending to give an ex-
hibit ofthe debt ofthe county. We shall
examine it in one or two particulars at
present. II has failed to convince us,
from the fact that we do not believe it
correct, and we will show in what our be-
lief is founded.
The Auditor says; "March 9th 1876
Paid John H. James, Esq. on county
bonds. "Urbana debt" $12,01S so.
In this item there is a mistake now or
was last year. The item comes under
last years reports. There We find a
mount paid to Urbana Bank $13,OS0 90.
The difference may be the interest, but
from the fact that a subsequent payment
was made, we think not. The Auditor
would have put the interestin the amount.
But this is not all. In the same report of
last year, we find an item-"received of
Cincinnati Bank-$13,06O co." We
said then the money was Lorrowed-bor-
rowed to pay the debt. 1t was not de-
MED. This item, then, is not included in
the Recapitulation. Has it been paidl
Or did the Cincinnati Bank owethe coun-
tyl Unless this is explained, we shall
add this much TO the county debt-we
shall charge the commissioners with bor-
rowing from one bank to pay another. Is
this the way to get out ofdebtl Prudent
men tell US that this mode of doing bust
ness will ruin individuals-is not the ten
dency the same when the county is con-
cerned2
Unless this is explained to us, we shall
be compelled to accuse the Auditor ofun-
fairness.
Again we find 1884, paid J. Douthirt.
This, we suppose, is for building Rush
creek bridge. Has not this money been
paid once before? If so, and the Com.
missioners have been compelled to pay
it again, is there any likelihood that they
will recover from the over-paid partner or
his bond2 This case has been in litiga-
tion-court costs have been paid, At.
torney fees have been paid, and all the
result of carelessness or favoritism. But
we intend to notice it again.
Again. In his recapitulation, the Au-
ditor does not notice outstanding bonds.
We know ofsome, one for $50, and there
are doubtless many moro. Can the Au-
ditor tell how manyl
The Auditor adds:
There are some other matters which I do not
deem il necessary TO notice at this time, deeming
it below the dignity of public officer to notice
low iDsinuations, which are made through the pub
lie press under a false name"
When a mar is in a bad "fx" he had
better throwhimselfonh his dignity. Does
he mean to say that our Correspondent
Taxpayer" has not told the truth a
bout hint 1t can be proved. Does he
mean to say that he does not pay more
for printing and stationery than his broth
or Auditors in other countiesl The re.
cords tell a different tale. We have
made no insinuations against him--what
we charged we proved; what "Tax.pay-
err charged, he is ready to prove. The
dignity ofan "oficer' is no more olo-
vated than that Of any other Servant"
and we can assure ouI Auditor that we
used no opithets save such as w meant.
When we believe the exhibit" to be
correct, we shall publish it and endeav-
or to do the Auditor full justice. In the
mean time, we trust his dignity will
not feel wounded because we cannot UNI
derstand his report.