The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1868-10-09
For the JeGersnnian.
COUNTY EXPENSE FUND $4,000

For ihe Jeifersnnian.
COUNTY EXPENSE FUND $4,000
The editor of the Courier in last
weeks issue attempts to answer nv
former article on Hancock County
democratic finances. He does not
deny a single statement, and really
admits all my statements, except the
one regarding the County Expense
Fund in 1867. He said 1 had missta-
ted this, and uses very freely the
words ''liar, ,hypocrite, ,scoundrel, &C.,
MIR. Glessner, remember You are a
grey, haired man, father of family,
soon togo to your grave; therefore,
your age, if nothing else, demands
my respect.
But let us consider. In the Hancock
Courier of October Sd, 1867, Is pub
lished the official statement Of H. b
Wall, County Treasurer, of the grand
duplicate of that year. BY that pub
lication the County Expense Fund is
given as S33,741 81. We find the
same amount in the report of the
Auditor of State for 1867, (page 36)
Now who is responsible? who is the
'liar'' &c, Mr.. Glessner?-Mr. Wall,
the Courier, the State Auditor, or
Tax payer ?''
But the Courier says that $4,000
OF Infirmary Fund is included in this.
Let us see again. Let US admit this.
Now We know that our County
officials sold the stock in the Findlay
d Cary Branch Railroad, which the
county owned, for about $4,000, which
was worth, and for which they could
have got, two or three times as much,
had they made proper inquiry and
exercised ordinary discretion or re-
gard for the interests of people. There
was also in the Treasury over 50, 900
surplus Soldiers Bounty Fund. This
sum of $4,000, and over, was trans
fered to the In6rmary fund. Now
add this to the County Expense
Fund, as given, and we have abou.
$44, 900. Now, Mr.. G., deduct your
$4,000 Inhrmary Fund, and we still
have about S27 900, as the County
Expense Fund Of 17G7. But says
Mr.. Glessner, in his.last weeks Cour-
ier, "if we had been as diligent to
discover truth as to tell lies, we
would have found that there is sc, 900
Of last years County Expense Fund
yet in Treasury" What do you
mean Mr.. Glessner To what end?
II you mean that the County officers
levied $4,000 for that Fund alone
land we don't know how much more
of Others, more than was needed,
then we say, what an unexampled
outrage this, at time, when money
was 80 scarce and hard to get, to
compel the taxpayers to pay $4,000
more than was needed, and let it lie
idle and useless in the Treasury.
What gross carelessness and incom.
potency. If you mean to say that
it is there for current expenses of
the year, then the fact is patent, you
have leried it, it has been paid in
by the tax payers, and you admit all
we claim. If, finally, you mean that
there is $4,000 of this Fund alone in
the Treasury, more than needed,
then, by reference to the County
report of the grand dupli-
cate, published in the Courier of last
week, We find that you have levied
for County Expense Fund for the
year 1868, $4,000. Add to this the
Sc, 900 and We find you levying s24,-
900 for County Expense Fund for
this year of grace, 1865. Again we
ask, who is '"iiar, hypocrite, &c ?''
"Tax payer" MIR. Glessner, Courier
or County Treasurer. Mr.. Glessner,
stop! you can't explain away the
fact of extravaganza, carelessness,
corruption and wrong in the manage
ment of our County by your party.
The more you stir it up. the worse
you make it. 1t is bad enough in
all conscience; don't make us blush
for our County, and for honesty in
man by making it worse.