New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-04-23

THE EXPERTS MAKE REPLY TO Mr.. GAR
RIsONS CRITICISMS.
THEY OFFER 40 CRITICISMS or ALEXANDER
IfAMILToN's METHODS BIT SAY THAT TIE
GOVERNMENT BCsINEss HAS orTGEoWN
TIIEM-FRhUD NOT MADE EASIER

TllEI FRAUD MI HiNl''' f''''i'''
BY THE new PLAN
Washington April % CSpecIaD.-The answer OF the
experts under the joint commission to examine the
executive departments to the statement OF ). H.
Garrison formerly Deputy First Controller. observes
that hs is the third public effort OF the iate p'P-
uty Flrs Controller to raise objections to the Bills
I'm ,roducel by the commission. the second having
been an article signed by Mr.. Garrison which APP
pearcl IN The New-Y0rk Tribune Ire experts
after expressing qualification at an opportunity OF
meeting objections. say:
The general trend OF Document No 10 Is TO ad-
vance the idea that 10 improvement OF me metn-
DDS should De necessary as the syst - that Wnon
established by Alexander Hamilton; and yet the al
mission is made that there are SOM s,. arims ,h
fccts in the present system. as. FOR instance, inc
conflict between the decisions which are made by
'ns c,ns -, ne 10 rdd'irc no further argument
as the rea sons are fully set forth in TN" reports OF
The GSn ip ,S5 b az TSc dcnt a9o ncaSs
That there has never been time when the 5ySte,h
was not satisfactory tn, various reports anI rec
ommcu Iatlons made q Congr, during the last one
hundred wears prove 10 the contrary. -
There il no lack Of respect for the statesmen
who founded our Government. but neither they nor
any other pubic men were endowed WITH q sun
clcnt amount OF foresight 10 construct system IN"
I.tails ~ which would provide FOR all IN" require
mcnts of the Government after century ot ui'i
plrallol.d growth and development Ihere sho
H.. oh rgas I'm ih. accounting system TO meet IN"
requirement. ~ such growth, Just as tn'rc nav nav
been changes IN other branches, ihnt u'r' nav nav
been marked advances IN the methods OF war p2sta'
affairs etc. no one VIII question ilr tnHV niV'
kent pac, with all other advances in CIVILIZATION.
while the Governments accounting system mas
stood Sill
The n-@t objection mention i 10y Nh Garrison is a
conflict ~ provisions between two pending bills.
yhich provide for certifying accounts IN one cas-"
T., TN. REGISTER ~ the Treasury. AMI In the oih'-
q, the Division Of B,akkccpIng AMI Warrants. Tn"
experts explain TIA; the first bill was reported be-
r., . aas co ..I thit the 'ni'rf accounting br"n n
~ th. G,,,rnm,nt rhoull De- asse nhicl In the III
and NFar
Commission had determined either To amend la the
Senate the frs, bi.l = combine both bills In one
making the System uniform. The next objection or
MIR Garrison u - the reasons urged for th'. pro-
posed changc- namely that the public business VIII
%. expedited. and b. - urgrl that delays d. not
occur only In the Offices %; ,he Controllers and he
Commls.l0ncr - Customs. bat quite az mucA In the
Auditors Offices TIE experts repy.
There has been 90 4'cmrt Oh our par, 10 ca,n
that Ell ~" de1y W. ihc srirm'nt 1 artnr T,
rri,or, page ~ u Will te tina" were careful
date ~ rendering untl the hna settlement OF ne
accounts passing through M" several AUDITORS
oriccs This gives the tine required by the system
and u not spccn. ~ 10 the delay being either ~
Tho only way t, remedy this aelay Is by changing
thc system. making specific responsibility ~ ON"
pac. for tnr pronpi a~i'en'ni 80 accounts a,1M.
operations complete The statement ~ the criu'
tnIt there g.. much d";sy m the auditors oric'-
In I~ % the CJAtrltr!f iu other N'ltg~.
two delays after the accounts nave been examined
hv the administrative onlcers-clcarly shows ina,
n one II th"s' sources 81 delay l' removed tne pup
De- bus.nr-. cannot iall 20 De- expedited
IL o. farther explained that. as delays often occur
because - the divided responsibility IN adjustment
either BY The executive or tse accounting depart
m,ut tho PROPOSED bill will result In the eNecutv"
d.uarimon, complying with the new law. \;
present by reason of thc double delays. tn" az
counts rendered by the executive department re
.u 300 ~ ne iIfllii. "Hl 'iilI''l'-" ''l'l-H
N Jntrs AMI years b~f1r' settlement AMI therefor
there has been no incentive Toy ti' administrative
departments 10 rrnlcr th~ir accounts promptly. II
present ne oniS real ch'cK upon ilSbirshS "il'rr
and ha; the changes proposed In the jurisdiction %
officers are ia. Ie.lH radical that 'hu l." made 10
order 70 give symmetry In tn distribution oi a'-
cJInta
Coming to the main objection urrel. namely that
a dlyiIcl responsibility In the accounting system
D. an essential protection 10 th" Government and
mat this H. proved hy The records OF the system
f,r moro tAan o. century. the experts reply that
the divided responsibility IN the accounting Offices
hns proved protection IN the cases Of frauds
that have occurred. They affirm that there ex-
lists now a real and substantial divided RESPONSE
billy. growing ont ~ the fact that practically alt
accounts are first examined all approved by the
head ~ the executive department which has
charge Of the cxpcndltures and then forwarded
10 the auditing officers Of the Treasury FOR final
audit. The double audit is thus secured at In"
only point whore II can b. effective for d third
audit" They say further:
When the Offices OF Auditor AMI Controller were
created I'm Ia" Treasury Department at tn" founda-
ton Of the Government. there was no adminstra-
I'VE I'VE nuhl. q, n''o, It, N,'ou', ,, pI ,h
gent TO the Controller FOR final audit In the
prnrrags oah, Government IL has been found that
an examination and approval OF An account by the
head u tn" department who authorized the eN-
At the foundation OF the Government the audit by
both Auditor and Controller. when there was no
administrative audit. was thought desirable, It is
now equally desirable to have these two Treasury
au1lts continue now that II preliminary audit 10y
the head OF Il department has been found neces-
sary. and the business OF the Government has
enormously grown. simply shows that those who
contend thus have more regard 10 form than sub
stance.
In answer TO the argument that the system
originally devised by Mr.. Hamilton has worked
marvellousy well. with insignificant losses to the
Government. the experts say:
By the System proposed the Treasury Of the
United States will not Toe open To an increased
number of frauds and defacatlons The frauds
In states and municipalities are usually such rs
cannot be detected by an accounting system. but
those that ,bc viii be more quickly detected by
n prompt and efficient audit than Is the with
the present cumbersome examination in the Treas
ury Department long periods after the expendl
,horb hy rho r"roris Of the TrensuEy Denarincnt
such officers ar" charged with vast sums Of money
| unaccounted for.
As sufficient reply 10 tho statement that q
dishonest dlsbursng officer may succeed in corrupt
ing a dishonest Auditor. It Is answered that eases
| in which the Auditor has been in COLLISION with
a dsbursing officer have not been found. but ases
| in which there has existed collision between Con-
/ trollers and claimants are known" Instances are
| given OF this. and also where the Auditor
dsrcgards the Controllers notice. and states the
account at a less rate than the Controller after
ward allows
In respect to friction between different officers
arising from conflicts Of opinion and disputed dis
! bursements. 1t is urged that under the proposed
! system. ~ the disburslng officer nnls that the
! Auditor l. charging him with Items which ne prop
! ery dsburse1. disbursed under orders he brings
the account appeal to the attention Of the Con-
! troll,r." Regarding contradictory constructions
! OF statutes by the two Controllers and the Com
missioner OF Customs Il Is admitted that the present
system Is Objectionable. and the experts urge that
the proposed law will cause unhcation OF decisions