The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-10-27
MORE PLAIN FACTS.
The Actual Running Expenses
of King County.
DOSE OF FACTS FOR WARNER.
OnIy . small Preportios OF the rsxes
Are for County Porposes-Aapie
~ . Horrible Example.

The statement Was made IN yesIefiaF
Posr-ISrELLfsEscEg that the total amount
OF county expenses for all and every de-
pa-tment Of the county government and
including the interest on bonds and war
rants reaches only SIS. 00e.o6- This state
ment is easily and simply proven. for the
only funds from which the county COM
misssoners are authorized to draw are:
The general county fund.
Tae read and bridge fund
The road fund.
The salary fund
Under the existing laws the road and
bridge fund can only be expended for road
and bridge work.
The road fund can only be expended for
road work in the district from which the
funds came.
ACTUAL COUNTY ExPEysEs.
Hence, il follows that the only funds
upon which the county commissioners
can draw for county expenses are the
general and the salary funds. The only
way in which the commissioners can draw
upon these funds is by the issue of war
rants or orders. # IS easy, therefore, tn
discern that the measure of expenditures
for county purposes. including salaries,
would be the warrants issued upon these
funds. County expenses may therefore
readily be ascertained by reference TO the
auditors report That report shows the
following:
Total county warrants issued, s225. s47. Sc.
Total salary warrants issued, $io0 6l0.e9
Making a total of all warrants issued for
county expenses OF $326. $3.50.
Deduct from this total the fees collected
and paid into the county treasurer's Office
by the several offices, amounting 10 s59-
ia 20 This leaves a balance OF sec, ia. %
This balance represents the total expenses
OF King county for the fiscal year ending
June 80. 1894 There is no juggling with
figures TO arrive at this result. The Posi-
IsrEILIGEScER has striven to place this
matter before the people in the simplest
manner possible. Hereafter there can be
no excuse for Popuhst and Democratic
stump speakers to assert that the county
commissioners have spent 81. 4l0. 600 within
the past year for running the county gov
eminent Any one can understand the
above figures. and any one can readily as
certain whether or not the Posr-INTELLI-
eEscEg has adhered strictly to the facts.
However, in order that it may not be
charged that anything has been omitted.
the three following items may be included
in the expense account:
Interest paid on salary warrants ..-...& l02l 90
Interest paid on county warrants 5,56s IS
Interest paid on bonds. ......-....-..- lo.6ss 90
This then. would make the total amount
Of county expenses, including interest on
bonds and warrants. $3.50 oo9.06.
THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS.
But this whole amount cannot fairly be
charged up TO current running expenses of
the county, for the reason that of this
total the sum of ssh. 1875 is for construc-
ton of buildings and for Improvements,
which are permanent and which will not
need renewing. This Ssl, l57.s5. then.
shou Id be deducted from the total (S2s9
009 O6), which leaves the actual expense.
including interest on warrants and bonds.
at s207 .s5l.2i. instead of 81. 4l0, 900, as as
serted by Warner. Thompson and other
stump speakers.
WHAT THE COUNTY CONTROLS.
In fact. il would be absolutely impossi-
bic for the county administration to spend
81, 4i0. 600 or anywhere near that sum- for
the simple reason that no official or set of
officials in the county government handle