The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1874-02-13

afterwards a resolution to investigate
the First National Bank of Wash
ington was passed.
The Register Again.
As we expected, the Register has rushed to
the rescue of its Echo, and strikes right and
left with more vshemence than either truth or
candor, if we may except the following:
We have heretofore given the Journal some
credit for common honesty. He demonstrates his
right to the credit by omitting from his report of
the REGISTERS article in the Journal of January
l6lh the word ordinary for the express purpose it
appears Of bringing in the count the extraordinary
expenditures for the new court house, now in pro-
cess of construction in this city.
We plead guilty to emitting the word Ordin-
arg as the Register charges, but did it IN
willingly, for we never yet Wilfully did
contemporary injustice, and do not propose to
begin now. Our copy Of the Register had
been mislaid, and We copied from its Echo,
but had no intention of emitting the word,
even if it was in the paper we copied from. In
fact we would have preferred its insertion. 1t
would have given US still greater advantage,
as we shall proceed to show.
If the reader will peruse the above extract
again, he will perceive that the Regi ster con-
veys the idea that all expenses not ordinary
were incurred for the new court house, for we
brought in all the expenditures. We were
aware Erie county was building new court
house, and the Auditors statement shows
just what was collected and just what was ex-
pended for that purpose. This much pre-
missed, let US place. the editor Of the Register
on the stand a moment, and see what kind of
a witness he Will make.
You say the total ordinary expenses of
Erie county were SIS, % less than the total
ordinary expenses of Sandusky county?
Ed. RegisteT-I cannot deny said that
The total expenditures of Sandusky county
were Sl77,72O.49. Deducting, therefore, Sl3,-
1928 from those figures, will show the ordin-
arg expenses of Erie county to have been
$l63, ,96l.12, will it not ?
Ed. RegisteT--I cannot deny your conclu-
sion.
The total expenditures OF Erie county, as
shown by Auditor Merry, were S26s.448.69.
II, therefore, we deduct the ordinary expenses
(Sl63,9 ,96ll2) from those figures the balance
must show the total extraordinary expendi-
lures of your county. The balance is SlO4,-
4S7.77, which you say was for extraordinary
expenses?
Ed. Register-Well, you left out the word
ordinary "fOr the express purpose, it appears,
of bringing in the count the extraordinary ex-
penses for the new court house." and that is
the amount not included in the ordinary ex-
penses.
Now, haven't you made little mistake, Ish-
mael? Isn't Auditor Merry's word good for
a little something in this connection Auditor
Merry and the Commissioner, in their report,
published in your paper few weeks ago,
make the following statement:
BUILDING FUND.
RECEIPTS.
Balance in hands of Treasurer Sept. c,
go 5S
Collections upon duplicate. 90, ,G6S O5
Proceeds from sale bonds .-..........-. 3,4O0 90
sH,618 G8
DISBURSEMENTS.
Amount of orders redeemed .S49, 1856 80
Balance in hands of Treasurer Sept 1G,
1873. l2O2 ~
sI4,61s 68
How will yeu harmonic these figures, |
brother? The Commissioners say they only |
paid out $43, 1856 80 for the court house, which,
deducted from $lO4,4S7.77-leaves SCI, ,1Sl.47 |
of the funds for extraordinary expenses to be
accounted for. Was it t'spirited away, or what
became of it2 How will you account for this3 |
Have the taxpayers of Erie been swiRdled, or
what is Wrong2
Ed RegisteT-Well, all know is that the |
ordinary expenses of Erie county were Sl3,- |
1929 less than those of Sandusky. That all |
the expenses not ordinary must have been ex-
traordinary, and as the court house building /
was extraordinary all the extraordinary expen-
ses must have been for the court house.
And that is about the style Of the Registers
argument all through. In order to hit at San
dausky county he makes the assertion docs
not give the fgures) that its expenses were
more than those Of Erie, and this too with
terrible array of figures against him; he ere
ates an extraordinary expense of SCI, ,l3l.47 |
he cannot explain. Truth Is, however, the or
dinary expenses of Erie were Just that amount
more than the Register is willing to allow, and
insted of being $l6S,96I.l2, were S225, ,O9250.
And instead of being SlS,7592S less than
those Of Sandusky county, the ordinary ex-
psnses of Erie were $47,S7I.99, more than the
totalexpenditures of Sandusky county. Which
we proceed to demonstrate from the official
figures:
Total expenditures Erie county,. SECS, AS 60
Total extraordinary expenditures Eric
county for court house. 43, 1856 80 /
Leaving total ordinary ex. Erie county s225 O92 80
Total expenses Sandusky county 1920 40
Leaving total ordinary expenses Of Erie
more than total of Sandusky. ......... 81, ,371 90
Nor is this all, the ordinary expenses of Erie |
county for 1878, were $50, ,16S.l7 more than
the ordinary expenses of 1872, and $34, ,637.-
SO more than the total disbursements of that |
county for 1872, both ordinary and extraor-
dinary, which we will proceed to show, and |
leave the Taxpayers of Erie county to judge to
what extent they are being saddled with ex-
penses, and whether they are legitimate. We |
quote from the Erie County Commissioners
report for 1872 not, like the Register, content
ing ourseIf with mere assertion:
Total collections Erie county in 1872 $245 744 Il
Ordinary expenses. .$1T2, ,924 %
Extraordinary " &C. H.).. 1850 5S
Balance in Treasury....... 55,2S9 91-S245, IA II
Again Erie had
Ordinary expenses 1873 .S225 0S2 80
1SI2....-..--...-.... 112,924 22 |
Excess of 1873 over 1872. ............ $50, les II
Yet again Erie had
Ordinary expenses in 1873. .S225 092 80
Ordinary and extraordinary 1s72.... 1sO,454 80
1-ACcss IL 1otS----.-.-- --.-.s..-.s--. SSs5eOt -
We leave the Register to explain these !
figures, if it can, and satisfy the taxpayers of
its county that there has been no outrage COM