Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1894-09-28

public from being further humbugged
by the dishonest pretenses OF that
great family journal. II
The Herald of the following date
has an article headed ''What Has
Caused IT, in which the same table
of figures is given. It is evident that
the statement was prepared by some
county officer. as both newspapers
would not acci1ently happen to hunt
up such absurd comparisons. We
very much regret that the author of
the table does not claim the credit.
He is a wonder, and the people
should know who he is.
Just study that table and see what
you get out Of it.
What sense is there in comparing
1892 with 1893?
Has any imbecile claimed that the
gang were competent in 1892 and in
competent in 1888?
You were bad in 1892 and worse in
1888, and show no disposition to i'm
prove. ."-
Does it help the case any to show
how much worse you were in a few
matters in 1893 than in 1892?
Will any county officer deny that
the outstanding county orders on
Jan. ], 1893, amounted to $4,l27. 03,
and that ON Jan. /. 1894, they
amounted to $1S,SS6.51? The Tran
script makes that statement, and is
it not true?
Is it not also true that the: receipts
of the county revenue fund during
1893 were $15,011.25 and that the
county revenue expenses for the
same time were $25, 3S. .25?
If we are wrong in those state
ments, show it.
In the tablet it is stated that the
tloa ting debt Jan. !, 1894, wds $685.
1913 ga, and it. appears that $602.47 OF
it was road and bridge orders. 1t
appears from the statement that the
floating debt ON Jan. !, 1898, was
$12,971. 55. Bear in mind that the
county officers have Il system Of
"overdrafts' that they count as
''floating debit" although the usual
understanding is that the outstand-
ing county orders constitute the
floating debt. But concede that
their peculiar system of taking
money from one fund to help out
another is proper, and tina the float
ing debt is the outstanding orders
plus the overdrafts. The table then
subtracts the debt of Jan. l, 1898,
from the debt of Jan. l, 1894, and
finds an ''increase of floating debt
during 1888 of $40, 422.09." But the
plan of the official who made the
table is to show that the revenue
debt did not increase $4,000, as the
Transcript has claimed, SO he de-
ducts from the $10,422.09 (the in
crease) the amount of $6O2.47 road
and bridge orders, and makes a bal
ance of met increase of county
revenue debt during the year 1893 OF
$9.8l9.62.'' Now the assumption is
that the $l2,97l.55 debt OF Jan. l,
1893, was all revenue debt, and it is
necessary to stick to that in order to
get an increase OF county revenue
debt of less than $4,000. AS mat
ter of fact the FLOATING debt" Of an.
l.. 1893, included road and bridge Or
ders tC. the amount of $464.75, and
poor fund orders to the amount Oi
$8.25-total orders other than
revenue, $473. Then if the $602.47
road orders are to be subtracted ON
Jan. l, 1894, it is plain that the
road and bridge and poor orders
should be added if a correct
result OF the change il county
revenue debt for 1893 is to be OBJ.
I tained. That would bring the
amount OF increase il county revenue
debt during 1898 back to $50, 292. So
/ Continuing the effort to deceive, the
/ table finds the decrease in thecounty
revenue receipts for 1898 under those
OF 1892 at Sc, 4S1,64 and subtracts
that amount from the assumed sin
crease of county revenue debt FOL
1893 Of $50, S19 .62' and finds as bal
ance increase OF revenue order.
issued during 1898, $S6 $685. .9S.' =
i It will certainly exasperate any
i taxpayer to have the county ganf
TRY to push down his throat tina
labsurdity
I, Think 81 it! 4.
Subtract the decrease in the re
Il ceipts from the increase in debt, AM
i the result is the increase Of revenu
!. orders issued during 1893.
II that isn't the climax Of lecei
!. and Ignorance we will advocate th