The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-03-26
MAYOR WALKERS REPORT co z
TINUED.
Baker and MoGriff Agree
Walker Don't Agr5e With himself

! If, therefore, the Clerks books
make out a bad case for the oil 4
\ Board, the old Board must settle the
matter with the Clerk In any case the
people will not be satisfied with
anything else than full and com
plete explanation of the ex Mayors
administration. Why did he not re
port the entire city indebtedness? {?
How does it happen that he reports
| but $242 06 in the treasury at the
end OF the year 81 and '6S, while 5.
*. Leavitt reports a sum five hun
dred dollars larg9r?-[ Courier.
ANswER.-The ex-Mayor did MT
report S242 06 in the Treasury at the
time stated.
The Treasurer, Mr.. LEAvITT, did
not report S7l2 06-that is $500 more
than the ex Mayor.
The ex- Mayor reported cash in
Treasury at the time stated, (see
Minute Book of Council of April 6,
1868, page 581.) S1l7 O6.
Mr.. LEAvITr, Treasurer, reported
cash in Treasury same time. (see
same Minute Book, page $50, } $747 0G
To use the language Of the Couier,
how does it happsn that the Clerk $
books show that the SUN borrowed by
the city from banks, during Mayor
WALKERS first year, was $56.85 91,
aud the amount paid on loans
during the year was $54, ,322 p, leav-
ing due on money borrowed from
banks during the year the sum of
S2,536 81? That is, only two thou
sand five hundred aud thirty six dol
lars and sixty-fiye cents now owing
on money borrowed during the year.
At the same time the Mayors
receipts and payments show nothing
whatever received or paid on account
of loans; and Notwithstanding the fact
that by his account there was nothing
received or paid on account of lolns,
still he says, in subsequent part OF
his report, under the head of Indebt-
edness Of the City: Bank Debt,
$500 65.
There never has been, and we pre-
sume never will be, a discrepancy
found between Ex- Mayor BAKER 5
reports aud the Clerks books, but
here, unfortunately, Mayor WALKER,
besides disagreeing with the Clerk,
disagrees with himself to the extent
Of S45,09f 65. For if the city owe,
bank debt, for money borrowed. OF
/ S45, ,094 60, it is clear that the city
must have received the prooecds-
that is, the city must have received
S45 094 65 on account of loans made
over aud above the amount paid out
in redemption of loans. The Clerk 5
books show, and We doubt not they
will agree with the Treasurer books,
that the sum of $J6, ,S5S 91 was re
; ceived at the City Treasury as the
, proceeds of loans, and that the sun
of $54,322 q was repaid upon loans
by orders drawn upon the Treasury
and charged against these leans by
: the Clerk.
Now we take the ground, after Z
careful examination of the method iu
which the business is transacted, thai
) the Clerks books are correct-tAa
is. that the sum of-S56, ,856 81 is th,
, exact amount of the proceeds of th,
loans, so far as they were legally made
and permitted to go through the Cit
Treasury, and thus appear on TIA
) Clerks boOks-for no sum of none
can, by any possibility, be entered II
2 the Clerks books, (that is, the city
) boOks) uuless it is paid into tn
. Treasury, and the Treasurer reoeip
therefor fled with the Clerk. [
follows, therefore, that the proceeds o
c all loans made over and above Tie
t sum Of $56.S38 81. never were paid
r into the Treasury, but were disbu sec
0 without apo ariag upon thc Clerk
r books, AMI ii" not ai.,,.,r ann .ng fhe
] receipts of the city We, Therefore
r conclude that Of the sum of SI5.
n O94 60, which the Mayor states is du
q in bank loans, at least So 55S OF
9 never was permitted to be paid int