Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-07-21

10 tue DerhocF0f = structures upon the pre-
sent Auliror's Annual Report. and now
proceed to 'he task. Upon re-examina-
tson of them since. however, we notice but
two or three points we did not fully re-
riy to last week. deserving of any notice
whstevsr. and shall not. therefore, occupy
much space M cur remarks to-day on the
snbject.
Referring to the Stationery bill of $780,
0e SLOWED at the last June Board. which
the Auditor rightly placed in the report as
part Of shc expenses Of the past Admin
istrstica. the Democrat says:
He could, with the same propriety.
have reported the amount allowed him for
fling road receipts. or recording the delin-
quers list. or IN fact all the orders which
were made by the Board at its June term %
We showed last week that the Auditor
was justi6able under the peculiar circum
stances of the case IN making the expIana-
ton he did concerning tie bill. and making
1t part Of the expenditures of the past year.
No injustice is done any ere in so doing.
and no one has any right to complain OF
the irregalarity. As to the matter OF
fling road receipts" about which the
Democrat seems slightly exercised. brief
explanation will enable the reader to com
prehcnd the gist of the affair. as well as
what that journal was trying to make a
drive at. by the way it referred to it, 1t
appears that the former Auditor never
took the trouble to cancel the road re-
ceipts" separately after being handed over
10 him. but simply put them mp in packa-
ges and endorsed the outside wrapper
II is true he made no special charge for
this service, but every year got an allow
ancs Of 800 for extra services. for which
the law makes no provision. we are told.
Had any or all of the packages Of receipts
been stolca out Of his Office they might
have been ased second time. The pre-
sent Auditor takes the prccaution to can
eel each receipt, so that they can in no
contingency be used second time. For
this labor he charged the county less than
the law provides for such services. and it
was allowed at the last term of the Board.
Whist was wrong about it? Is it not ne
cessary to observe this precaution to pre-
vent the people from being swindled out
Of large amounts? And is it not proper
that tho Auditor should be allowed fair
remuneration for what be does, especially
when he does not expect to ask the county
to give him 300, contrary to law. for cx-
ira services?
Tha. too much care cannot be observed
by the Auditor to prevent fraud and pccu-
lstion ID excmpli6ed BY the fact that the
present incumbent has already saved the
county over City dollars by adopting the
system Of checking off County Orders
handed over to him by the Treasurer. after
being redeemed. which his predecessor new
q took the trouble to do. 1t has enabled
him to detect three Orders that had been
each increased In amount $40 over and a
bovs tl,c original sum; and only the other
day . gentleman who had lost an Order
he had drawn for $40 or 325 came to
town for the purpose of taking such steps
- might be necessary to enable him to
draw another for the same amount. br. the
Auditor turned 70 his book and after cx-
sminS It short time informed him that
ms Order had already been redeemed
Had he pursued the careless policy of his
..illustricns predecessor" IN this respect
he could not have told without looking Over
shs Orders whether the one lost by the gen
tls,nsn had been redeemed or not. moi
would he probably have discovered th'
forgszies in the other cases. How mucf
tho county lost by such means during thu
administration Of the exAuditor can new
er be asccrtained.
But we have wandered slightly away
from the text. The Democrat objects tc
counting the sl93 interest now due on th'
Library Order as County Indebtedness. al
r.sough it admits that it is probably. lite
rally true," because. it is the first repor
it s.ever noaiced in which the interest OF
outstanding orders was inserted Is an item
Of Indebtedness The reason" tha
paper s<Als, 'why the Auditors do no
publish il 30. is because. they have nj
means Of sseertsining the amount" WI
are unable to perceive any forcs whateve
in the objection. 1: amounts to- nothing
The report did not pretend to give the a
mount of interest on al outstanding Or
ders, but on this one the amount was &C
cursteIy asccrtained and legitimstcly pm
down as part of the indebtedness Of th
county. Will any ono say it Is not cor
rect? If the smount on oil other out
standing Orders could by any means be as
csrtaincd it would DO both right and prop
40, - - H. .wlxsb,t ssfor the IN