The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-02-21
THE EXPENSES OF THE ovERsEER OF
THE POOR,

A writer who does emo. wish to shield
"the present overseer of the poor'-of
course not-but merely rushes to his de-
tense In order "to expose the falsity Of the
4" criticisms TO which he has been subject
"ed," makes the following statement of
his expenditures:
The Doctor has expended in all las
per orders drawn) ....................Sl6,4T6 SO
But or this amount he he paid bills OF
former overseer amounting to-. 1859 az
Leaving amount OF his expenditures, si5,396 d
Out OF this amount he has
paid for repairs. ........ $l,4o4 40
For furniture, bedding and
For SlG stooEs tools, etc. sss % % 1850 ss
We therefore find he has actually
disoursed for poor. sl1,045 81
The writer of the above-one who
thought special enactment by the legisla-
ture vas necessary in order to keep the
poor expenses Of Rutland within due
bounds-has had access to the books and
papers of the overseer and states that he
" has expended in alias per orders drawn
"-$16,4 76 S9;" the overseer Of the poor,
in his official report, states that he has
drawn orders for only $16,40O.62. Here
we have a discrepancy Of $7627 between
the official and semi-official report-the Of
fetal report being for the lesser amount
Which statement is entitled to credit2 1t
is only small discrepancy, to be sure,
but it shows how the accounts are kept.
The town auditors, in the discharge of
the duties imposed upon them by law, ex-
amined and audited the accounts of the over
seer of the poor for the past year, so far as
they were presented, and report that Or
ders have been drawn for $17,134 As.
They had no extravaganza to cover, no in
terest in the matter save to find the exact
amount for which orders had been drawn
on the treasurer of the town of Rutland by
the overseer of the poor, and that amount
they place at $17,134,45 or $65756
more than the overseer's unofficial report
makes it, and 1888 SO more than his Off.
cial report. Which is correct?
1t is here to be remarked that is now,
probably, out of the power of any man to
examine the accounts of the overseer and
state what his expenditures were, and what
they were for. The auditors compared
the amount of the orders with the amount
Of the vouchers, and here their duties end
ed. They did not examine the items which
went to make up the accounts for which
the vouchers were given, and, indeed, 1t is
questionable whether 1t was their duty 30
to do. The statute, to be sure, requires to
report the accounts of the several officers
with the items" but this has never been
construed TO extend to the items of the
items of the account. Further, if they had
made this examination, what could have
become of itl They would, to be sure,
have discovered several interesting purcha-
ses but would have been too late to have
prevented the mischief, for orders had been
drawn for the full amount of the accounts
and, in many instances, theee orders had
been paid by the town treasurer. After
the conclusion of their examination, the
accounts and vouchers. instead OF being
left with the auditors or deposited in the
town clerks office, were taken possession OF
by the overseer of the poor, himself, and,
II is said, were destroyed.
But whether these orders amounted to
S16,476.89 or seventeen thousand dol.
lars, it makes very little difference. An ex-
penditure of six hundred dollars more or
less does not alter the complexion of the
matter. Taking his own figures for 1t, we
hsye an expenditure of $16, 1850 the