The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-28
Travis County Poor Farm

on farmers by the maintenance of TIL
county poor farm. l have also com
planned that it is not possible to dis
cover the cost of running the farm ant
the returns therefrom, FROM the fac
that it is nobody's business to keel
any separate account of its operations
1t was therefore with considerable sat
isfaction that learned that JudgeVor
Rosenberg had gone into the subject
and had prepared statement show
ing the financial condition OF the in.
stitution.
A summary of the judges Statement
is published in the Travis County An
nual, just issued by Mr.. Alber1
Schutze, and as the publisher is noteG
for the correctness of his facts anC
figures" it is safe to assume that the
summary is substantially correct. II
has passed into an adage that figures
can be made to prove anything, anC
the adage finds an illustration in the
case uder consideration. In the state
ment for the year commencing Dec /,
1890, and ending Nov. 30, 1891, we finC
the average number of paupers sup
ported per month is II IA
Amount paid to superintendent, as
sistant superintendent, cook, farm
hands, etc, is $1495.2S.
Amount paid for supplies, including
provisions, clothing for paupers, stock,
i'm Elements etc. is 20 ii 40
Amount of fine and costs worked out
on farm by county convicts, $2225.
The total receipts from sale OF prod.
hand, $3472. 81.
This shows deficiency on the years
operations of 800 So; but we are told
that this is only seeming deficiency,
as the expenditure included charges
for refurnishing and stocking the farm
which would not occur every year.
The inference, therefore, is that there
was profit rather than loss on the
years transactions.
The year from Dec. /, 1891, to Nov.
80, 1892, shows an average of IL l-2
paupers per month.
Amount paid to superintendent and
other hands, $1812.40.
Amount paid for supplies, etc., 81
443.46.
Fines worked out by county con-
victs, $3.50.
Making total expenditure of 1884. 16.
Amount realized from sale of pro-
duce raised on the farm during the
year ending November, 1892, 50, 1865.
This shows according to my arith
ia hn Is
of $3.50 49. But Judge Rosenberg's
calculating machine is built on diff
ferent principle to mine, and is of
such an accommodating character as to
bring out any required result. AS a
poorfarm champion he very naturally
desires to show that the farm is not
only selfsupporting but very mine of
wealth to the heavily burdened tax
payer. He therefore shows, instead of
the deficiency l have named, net
gain on last years transactions of
81 1854 %, and we are told everyone
interested will concede that this is a
splendid showing made by the present
administration
!. Splendid showing, indeed! Show
ing that its compiler has a great con,
tempt for the intelligence of those for
whose benefit the statement is pub
lished. A splendid showing"
is made; but how is it
done? Why simply OH the principle
of robbing Peter to pay Paul, on a
plan adopted by some people when
they want to have good present time
ard mortgage the future to secure it.
In order to show big balance on last
years transactions the following items
of this years crops are included and
credited to last years account:
Corn, $500 bushels, valued at. s., 200 90
Sugar cane 80 tons ......... ........ 800 90
TOP fodder 1890 bundles ............... PC 90
Oats GOO bundles ......... -. ......... II so
Cotton seed, GOO bus hels ................ 60 90
Total. .......,... ...;...,:,.::......S2,lO3 80
A very simple and effective way of
turning a deficiency into surplus.
So simple that it is surprising no one
ever thought of it before. By its gen
eral application there would be an end
TO all financial difficulties. No more
bankruptcies or commercial troubles
of any kind worth mentioning. By its
widespread adoption the contraction
of currency would rot pinch, mono
metallism would be robbed
of its terrors to the free coinage of sill
YER men; in fact hard money would
soon become OF little or no value, the
only thing required being confidence.
But as confidence is more difficult to
acquire than cash, and when acquired
more easily lost, we will have to worry
along as before. The champions of
the poor farm can rest assured that
they will not establish confidence by
publishing such transparently partial
and untruthful statements as the one
now under notice. 1t would have been
better for their case had they allowed
it to 90 forth that there was a loss of
800. 66 in 1891 and of $139.49 in 1892,
than to publish false balance sheet
showing profit of 81, 945.02. 1t is also
noticeable that there is no account
taken of interest on the money in
vested in the farm or anything
charger for rent OF land. Oh, no;
don't it belong to the county and
therefore Goes not cost any thing for
rent?
But if the false statements were true,
and the poor farm had made all the
profit claimed for it, l still hold it is a
fraud and an outrage on the
farmers of the county. If it were
a necessity for the punishment of law
breakers or for the reimbursement of