Los Angeles herald., 1891-05-17
THE SUPERVISORS.
THE WAR OF THE EXPERT AC-
CoUNTANTS CONTINUES.
Expert Blackman Hits Back at Expert
Moore-The Figures He Cites to Sup
port His Report.

The board of supervisors yesterday re-
appointed George J. Mitchell as county
horticultural commissioner, upon petit
ton of 1877 residents and taxpayers of the
county.
Expert Accountant Blackman pre-
sented his report, and the same was or
dered filed.
The major portion of the day was occu-
pied in the taking of testimony regard
ing the Fruitland levee district. The
matter comes up again at 10 a. m. Mon
day, to which time the board adjourned.
The reportof Expert Blackman is very
voluminous. All the essential portions
of it are herewith printed:
"As requested by you. herewith sub
NIT statement and comparison of fig
ures in relation to taxes charged and cred
tied to Omri Bulls, ex-taX collector for
Los Angeles county for the year 1889,
answering and refuting the numerous
figures of the various exhibits and state
ments concocted by Edgar Moore in
his report to the Taxpayers Protective
Union.
SIN his report published in the news
papers, he states as to his Exhibit "A"'
that the auditor charged the collector
'omitting entirely Vol. No. s. He fur
ther says as to his Exhibit " B." that
| added So, ,9S0.76 of Vol. 8, and gave the
collector credit for $50, ,343.S7 collected
by the assessor, with which he has never
been charged. On reference to my pa
pers find / actually charged for Vol. s,
$38, 150.75.
He further says that / needed and
used $4091.26 double assessments to
make my balance. If he likes to take
the trouble-and work seems to be no
object, and he is willing to pay his
assistants out of his pocket if necessary
he will find that $4091.26 is the exact
sum of doubles in the various volumes,
and would for no man put in figures
in any account to force balance. . &.
Under exhibit "F" he gives the
valuation of each volume, and, accord
ing to his cleverness, proves the error OF
the auditor and Accountant -Blackman,
and the fact that volume 8 had never
been charged to the collector.
My statement attached will prove
that he is totally mistaken.
He finally says that exhibit "G."
gives a correct statement of the auditor g
dCCOuub dRdlHSb buC SOllCChOl,
$21 800 96 Cor $33, ,914.75 according to his
second edition of the discrepancy,
which | beg unreservedly to state is
utterly incorrect.
The total valuation taken from the
assessment rolls under Vols. IL
by the auditor ...................$46 $46, SOC, ,37T
Under Vols. GIG -........... ..... 50,25a, ,I32
Under vol. S......................... 2,S36, 800
Total. Observation-Disclosures 500, ,594, ,OO9
Moore's figures under the same vol
umes give:
1T SAT, ,179, ,248
GIG 16............... 5l,12S,505
o......... .. 1888 1850 SOL, ,161, ,113
Excess by Moore. 1857. 1O4
Now | will shsw the taxes charged
against the collector by the auditor,
myself and Moore
AUDITOR.
Vols. 1T and Gle ............s1, ,136, ,476 90
Vol g. Observation-Disclosures. OBI as
Errors ................. 100 90
s1,166,9 ,90s 81
BLAcKMAN.
Vols. IT and GIG .......s1 ,137, ,73s. 80
Vol 8. 9.......... ............ $3.50. rs
sI,175, 1888 OF
MOORE.
Vols. 1t and GIG ............... 81, ,166,56e %
Vol, ......... ..... 39,377. 70
Errors ........... 500 90
Warrant paid to Il. ]. Fleishman 5l3. 90