The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-11-01

cords, Should be Read and Reflected
Over by Every Man in the County
They are Absolutely Correct.
To the Taxpayers and Voters of Travis County:
eve submit for your consideration the
following comparative statement of the
expenditures of the general revenue fund
of Travis county for two years under the
administration of Hon. u L. Fillmore, as
county Judge, and twenty-one months
under Hon. j. M. Breckenridge, as county
judge, etc, ETC."
The statement then gives as actual cash
expenditures out of the treasury from the
general fund" as follows:
Under Judge Fillmore, from Nov 10, ACC oeo O.
Under Judge Breckenridge, from Nov. =,
Is, 1856, Aug. 10, 1855. 'o'Zoo II
All ged excess of Breckenridge over 10000,
Fillmore for time stated. ......... ~ 800 ~
The statement further says that there
was at the date it was made COST 8, 1889
outstanding unpaid debt against the gen.
eral fund, SIT 1881 Sc; and outstanding I'M
paid debt against road and bridge fund
$13,76O 70.
The statement is signed by number
of leading democrats of Travis county,
headed by Walter Tips, chairman of the
democratic executive committee of the
county.
1t will be noticed that the publication
referred to says the figures are absolutely
correct" and copied from county rec
ords," etc.
The undersigned, county judge and
county commissioners, deny that the fig
ures showing the amount of disburse-
ments under Judge Breckenridge
accrued under his administration, and for
which he is res ponsible with the county
commissioners-to the date mentioned,
are correct and challenge examination of
the records, or statement from the county
treasurer in support of the denial.
The error in the statement arose from
the following facts:
l. The statement begins, Judge Full
more's second administration, on Novem
Der Is, 1884, and closes the same on No
vember Is, 1886, when, in fact, his second
term commenced on November "a, 1884,
and ended November 10, 1886.
2. The statement begins Judge Brack-
enridge and the present county commits
sioners' administration on November 10,
1886, when, in fact, Judge Fillmore pre-
sided up to, and inclusive of, the 18th of
November, 1856, and the present court be-
gan its functions on the goth of Novem-
Der, 1886.
8. The statement charges Judge
Breckenridge and the commissioners with
expenditures of money on warrants that
were issued under Judge Fu,more's admin
istratiou; and also charges Judge Full
mores second term with expenditures
that were on warrants Issued during his
first administration.
These changes in dates as to the begin
ming and ending of the two administra-
tions from the true dates, would evidently
alter the whole statement, and make an
unfair showing for one or the other
Again, where during one administration
warrants are paid by the county treasurer
that were issued under the preceding
administration, to hold the administration
that was forced to make the payments re-
sponsibe is unjust.
Suppose warrant on the county treas
urer was issaed under Judge Fulmore's
administration, and paid by the county
treasurer during Judge breckenridge
administration, which Administrations is
responsible for that expenditure! Ger
taiuly tbs administration that issued the
warrant, and not the one that paid it.
Was this rule followed and these points
adjusted in making the statement headed
Alarming Figures!" ETC.? This plain. aud
certainly equitable and fair rule was moi
followed.
We have carefully examined the treas
urer's books, and found the strue amount
of actual cash disbursements for which
the two administrations are responsible
respectively, from the beginning of Judgt
Fulmore's second term until its close, anc
of Judge Brackenridge's from its begin
ming on November 20, 1886, and not No
vember 10, 1886, to August 15, 1888, tn
date to which the statement was made. L
making our figures, we have charged eact
administration exactly for what it ex
pended for which it was responsible.
The statement in The STATEsMA
referred to gives, as show
above, on the incorrect date
and improper charges spent b
Fillmore, from November 10, 1884, to -. ooo
November Is, 1856. 500 SOY
Breckenridge, from November 10, 1856, u ,oo
to August To- 1888 ...............'.'''''' 'o'@o7
Alleged ex,esg of Braclenri Ice. =. 80 1888 :
The true figures, correct dates of administrator!
and charges are as follows:
Fillmore, from November 90, 1884, to .
Novem yer ~, 1886 ............."..... S61,3S4 I
Breckenridge, from November 90, 1886,
to August Is, l:sS.. 6',S6o
Actual excess of Brackenn 'ge......... S584
Alleged exec s...."........ 9,397
Errors ard misstatements against Brack-
enrtdge ......... ..''.'''''' So,i4S
This is very grave error to be mac
by one distinguished merchant and seve
distinguished and astute lawyers. tt
SS,749.25 is a curious error 10 a stltemen
that is published with the conspicuol
headlines as being carefully compile
and absolutely correct"
We wish to note here that in the $67
968.39 expended during Judge Bracken
decentralization is included that pal
Ex-Governor Roberts of $25OO for psrtpa
ment on 100 acres of land, purchased fro
him for extension of the Poor Farm, an
as an expense should be regarded as Il
loss to the county, but en- expendltul
represented by property ss valuable as
the same were cash in the treasury.
One grave error in the statement was
charging Judge Brackenridge's admin
tration with $4,000 as a disbursement
when that sum was simply loaned to IL
school fund, and paid back to the gener
revenue fund in the next quarter.
GENERAL FUND DEBT.
,,, ,tl g.. Az dabt ouain