Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-09-23

tut this gathered from Mrs. Ocsch's son,
who also speaks some French.
p. F.. GrBBoNs.
THE COUNTY FISANCES.
The Debt and Annual Interest
10 the statement published in Wednes-
days lNTEL1LGENCER, based on the
financial report, that the difference be-
tween the county treasury receipts and the
county commissioners orders does not
indicate exactly I deficiency Of SaOO, 900.
but very plainly shows that the county
spends great deal moro than it collects.
which is very bad housekeeping" County
Commissioner Montgomery cxcepts also
to the conclusion that "Me Interest on
county loans ran up to $40, 1GS. .6y, indica.-
ing at per cent. a county debt of between
s4OO,O OOO and s5OO,0OO." Respecting tho
fact that besides his salary rs solicitor,
II. Fulton got S15 fee in the case of A.
Z: Welchans ct al. VS.. the county, and ].
IL. Brown. ex solicitor, 49, Mr.. Mont
gOn,ery also says that he objected to and
voted against these payments.
In 4 call ut the commissioners Office to-
day, all the commissioners and clerk Willis
being present, 4 representative of tho In
TELLIGENCER was given tho information
that the bonded debt Of the county Jan. /.
1876 was s29s, 9}3 10, balance in treasury
500, ,33O.95, difference S26S, co.. "a; Jan. 1,
1879, bonded debt s;4O, 16G 90, balance
SIG, 1870. difference s32f. 659. 90 alleged
increase of debt under tho last
board Sc, 6,051.Oj; Jan. 1, 1881,
bonded debt $780,, ,5l5.3i; balance in troa-
sury 500, 3O1.3S difference s263. .2l3 &c;
alleged decrease during the term Of the
present board SOL 1858. In view Of the
unusually large current balance OH .Janu-
ary l, and the possible claims upon it for
interest and other purposes during tho
next few months, the INTELILGENCER was
not disposed to accept this exhibit as
showing Of the real debt of the county.
An examination Of tho bond book
shows the actual debt on which tho
county now pays interest to be $3O1, ,O5i !;
there is, however. balance i'm tho treas
ury, which, with the further receipts Of
the present year and reduced expenses,
| will enable 4 further reduction in the
bonded debt next year. This cannot of
course now be calculated, but it is evident
that the present board haze retucCd tie
| bonded debt some $40, 900, while their pre-
decessOrs increased it about that much.
This certainly shows good "housekcep-
ing instead of "bad." though tho man
ncr in which the reports have to be made
the county year entlin. January and
the interest account April prevents
any proper exhibit of the actual county
debt or any basis Of the real difference be-
tween its receipts and expenditures. The
figures of tho bond book indicate that at
present the receipts exceed the expendi-
lures some $4,000 Il year, instead Of a
deficiency of ''nOt exactly $20O, ,OOO," as
VIC have said the rather obscure annual re-
port might lead people to believe.
The large amount of the interest paid
was due to the fact that the bonds issued by
the former board bore 5 per cent; tho
county now bOrrows money ut 4l, and as
the debt is reduced to about $500, 600 this
year interest will be less than 1000
against over s19, 900 last year.
The present commissioners admit that
i'll the first year Of their term the debt
was increased, but that was owing to tho
large expenses contracted by the board Of
1S79-79, and that in the two years since
tho present board have been in Office they
have effected Il net reduction Of $4,000.
OF their own salary and mileage last
year, Commissioner MOntgOmery's was
SlO9i.30 portion Of that drawn
''On account" as noticed in tho
annual report, having been duc from
an error in his favor in tho account of 1879.
Mr.. COblc's account last year was $13O5.
Mr.. Montgomery is of the opinion that
less frequent meetings of the board might
answer all public wants.
As to the extra fees paid the county
solicitor, MIR. Montgomery opposed that
the others approved it because Solicitor
Fulton insisted that it was due to him
the amount in dispute in the snit for which
the lawyers were paid $3.50 was a1Oj and
the plaintiff recovered $50, but it is said
tho claims Of eleven other assessors were
involved and = precedent for coming years.
No suit has been brought against Judge
Patterson nor demand made upon him fOr
the cost of printing his paper book in the
Stcinman- Hensel disbarrment case, fOl
which the Examiner. Office presented the
bill to the commissioners and which they
paid upon Solicitor FultOn's approval
The solicitor now thinks the payment was
wrong but he cannot suggest any way to
recover it.
The commissioners do not propose to
voluntarily pay tie 500 fine for neglecting
to publish their report, as they acted in
good faith in following the example of
their predecessors to postpone its publica-
tiOn until after the auditors met then
they discovered that the law, with good
reason, directed it's publication before the
audit and, that having been overlooked,
they deemed it's subsequent publication
neither justified by law nor any public
necessity.