Democratic Northwest and Henry County news. [volume] (Napoleon, O. [Ohio]) 1894-1905, 1894-06-14
The Finances Of Henry County.

~ VIC NeANAANAAAAAk 0ho
Gus observations made by the editor
of the Signal, as a reply to the last
article written by me, and published
in your paper OF May oath, and also in
the Signal May 3Oth, for which favor
/ am very much Obliged to you, also
to the editor of the Signal. 1t has
been said by one OF pre-eminent
knowledge and rare judgment that
to err is human, but to forgive is Di-
vine, but the editor Of the Signal
seems to be above the reach of the
former and destitute of the magma
nimity OF the latter, and il am to de-
pend upon him for clemency for er-
rors committed, either imaginary or
real, will have to remain unforgiv-
en-. / have affirmed in all former
statements, and in this one also, that
the chief cause of the deficiency in
the funds at the close of Mr.. Russelrs
term of Office is due to the fact that
the levies imposed were too low to
meet current expenses, which caused
the floating debt to be increased and
hindered the payment of any part of
the bonded debt of $685. 900, and in
my last statement | made a compari-
son of receipts and expenditures in
all the different county funds from
which all the expenses of the county
proper are paid, viz: County, Bridge,
Building, Sinking, Poor, Soldiers Re
lief anu General Ditch. | left out the
Election Fund for the reason that
that fund has been operated only
during my ihcumbency.
In this comparison of receipts and
expenditures l was obliged to com
pare and combine, add and subtract
many different numbers in order to
arrive at the correct conclusion as to
the condition of the several funds
compared at the close of business
September 1st, 1891, and in dealing
with the many numbers involved,
and not reviewing the work, human
like, / erred in two instances and two
only, viz: In the first table of my last
statement should have begun in the
County Fund with $17,304. so instead
of 1871, ,152. 90, and in the second table
in the column headed-Mr. Russell's
last statement, in the Soldiers Relief
Fund.- should have used 1894, SO in
stead of $337.S6. l make these cor
rections cheerfully and not grudging-
ly as the corrections in connection
with Mr.. Russel's reply are in my
favor.
Mr.. Russell might have corrected
these errors with as few words as
have by referring his readers to q
former statement of mine published
in the Signal March 2Sth, and in the
NORTHWEST March 22d, in which
gave the over-drafts in these funds as
herein corrected, and | stand ready
to defend every statement l have
made in this controversy, only reserv-
ing the right to correct all mistakes
made in compiling the same. Mr..
Russell however, instead of making
this correction and showing from his
former publication that they are err
rors, pure and without intent to mis-
lead, consumes the greater portion of
his space in the Signal in trying to
create the impression that great in
justice has been inflicted upon him in
consequence of these errors, and that
| am not entitled to the confidence of
the people on account of incompe
tency or desire to deceive. or both,
and had it not been for the errors
which he magnifies from molehills of
innoceney into mountains of duplici-
ity and chicanery. confess that l
am at aS4oss to know, after giving
him due credit for sagacity and craft
mess what course he would have ta-
ken in the defence of low levies which
produced collections below expendi-
lures, and caused the tax payers of
Henry county on the 1st day of Sep
tember, 1891, to be confronted with
floating debt of $4e, 1913. .85 and bond
ed debt of $165, 900. But in defense of
increased levies and in praise of the
taxpayers for the public spirit shown
in the prompt payment of taxes, be it
said, that all of this floating debt has
been paid and $780, 900 of the bonded
debt, all of which can be paid with
out increase in the levy by July, 1909.
Mr.. Russell during all this contro-
versy has assumed the position that
low levies were in no sense responsi-
BILE for the deficiency in the active
funds at the close of his administra
tion, and in order to prove to the peo-
pie that my last statement is not true
he drags into this dispute two old re-
tired funds, viz: the Napoleon River
Bridge Fund and County Road Fund
and the Pilliod Tax Receipt Account,
which never was in any sense fund,
but in order to retrieve himself from
the position in which his defense of
low levies has placed him he attempts
to unload the burden of deficiency
on his predecessor, Charles Evers, but
this attempt at chicanery is too ap-
parent to escape the notice even of
one as prone to err as he charges me
to be. Instead of Mr.. Evers leaving
him deficit in these county matters
as he denominates them of $4669.66,
Mr.. Evers left him a surplus or bal
ance of $4752. Al, as the following state
ment will show, to wit: InJune, 1888,
three months before Mr.. Russell as
sumed the responsible duties incum-
bent upon an Auditor, the Commits
sioners levied tax of IA tenth mills
for the Napoleon river bridge fund
for the double purpose of paying all
Indebtedness of that fund and closing
it up for all future time. This levy of
IA tenth mills produced a net collec-
tion of $S592. 10 which paid all indebts
edness and left q balance of $41S7.85
which Mr.. Russell transferred into the
County Bridge fund, but he was very
careful not to mention that fact when
he asserted that Mr.. Evers left him q
deficit of $4404.34 in the Napoleon
River Bridge fund. The difference
between having debt Of $4404.34 to
pay with $418785 more money on
hand to pay the debt than is needed
and not having any means provided
for it's payment is immense. and Mr..
Russell knows a good thing when he
sees it, and that accounts for his mag
nanimity in acknowledging the bal
ance on hand in the County Road
fund of the modest sum of $564.62
which helped to make it appear that
he meant to be fair and just to his
predecessor. The County Road fund
was all expended during his term OF
80 ~ GaxN