Daily Republican., 1879-02-12

and none Of the amount collected by
Sussex has ever been paid to the state'
But this Dover correspondent says that
the reason Kent did not pay her amount
over to the State, is because there was
a question of s40o commissions which
the Treasurer of Kent county claimed,
but that he always had and has now
81 800 which the State can have at
any time. Let us see how this story
will pan out. The Treasurer Of Kent
County in the first place owed the state
S27,sl9 but claimed s40e for ccmmis-
sions, he kept back, 81, 900 and Is still
keeping it back to insure the payment
of $500. Thin, very thin. AS the
State Treasurer did accept sl5,el9 OF
the amount due it is reasonable to sup
pose that he might have been induced
10 accept $ll 900 more, and still have
left $1,000 out OF which the county
Treasurer could have made his 1900.
Pretty big security-to keep sil 600,
to insure the payment of $500. After
this labored explanation, the cores
pendent simply says that Sussex is in
the same fix, and then he finds some
fault with Mr.. Dean for introducing
resolution of inquiry, without first hav'
ing made sCme inquiry into the true
state of the case. We ar. not the apol-
ogists for Mr.. Dean, but We presume
that he read the Auditors report, and
then came to the conclusion that every
honest body would come to, and that
was that Kent and Sussex owed s2b, ""o
of back taxes, and that not having
paid them in three years after they
were levied, they were in consequence
deiaulters to the State.
1t happens though that In the sam-
number in which this wonderful letter
appears, from which We have quoted,
there is another letter rom this same
CORES pond.nt, treating upon the tnan-
ces of Kent and SUSSEX, as shown by
the same Auditors report. From this
second letter we clip the following;
"The report Of the Kent county treas
urer shows that there was received into
the county treasury for ls77'e, $780,
1865, and paid out S34, 4ss.s6, in
Guiding the following Levy Court al
lowances Sherifis, clerks, attorneys,
physicians and bailifis, s3,95G.J6;
printing and stationery, s43l.s2; mis-
cellaneous 81 ,S42. 0S; assessors, $267.70;
coroners, $66.9s; constables, $232.2l
justices Of the peace, s366.64; sunday
schools, $JO0.03; members Of the Levy
Court, Sl,267.62; roads, bridges and
causeways, Is, 234.79; regular appre-
priations to roads, 1890.
By striking a balance between the re
ceipts and expenditures OF the county
as above reported, We find balance in
.he Treasury OF s949.999. Where are
those sl2, 600 that were collected in the
same years and must necessarily have
been part Of the receipts' Lstthat CORES,
pondent compare his two letters to the
Log. f." and concoct some other story
Had that $l2,O been in the Treasury
it would have been reported. In refer
ence to Sussex County the correspon
dent is very triet simply giving thu
following paragraph:
1.-THE Sussex county treasurer's bal
; ance shows up as follows: Amount re
ceived into county treasury, 500 ,2O7.s3
{ and amount paid out $22, ll2.19, leav
ing balance on hand of S7,O95.G4.'
Here there is balance OF s7,09j. 8
accredited to Sussex, but We would ash
where are the Sl4, 900 said to have beef
collected in the same years and paid in
to the Treasury, or ifthis balance re
ported is a part Of it where is the othel
balance of $7,904.36t These explana
tons are thin very thin, let US hea
something plausible.