Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-08-16
FINANCES DISCUSSED

A COrrespondent Who Does Not Agree
 With the ''Democrat'' Concerning the Administration of Selsctman
 Morris.
 Editor of the DEMOCRAT:
 You published an article last Wedues- day evening, in which it is stated that you had investigated the finances of the town and that you had made some surprising discoveries, and you complimentsd Select man Morris very highly on his skill as f. nancier; and you printed some figures, which purported to come from the select mans office, which were apparently in- tended to confirm your opinion, but could not have collated those figures and com pared them with the expenditures for the preceding year during the same period of time or you did not expect that anybody else would do so or you never would have published them.
 Last year you stated a number of times previous to the October election that the affairs of the town were managed with reckless extravaganza; and you brought to your aid MT Pinney's report of the expen- ditures of the moneys of the town; and from Mir Pinney's figures alone it ap- peared that the expenditures in 1894 ex- ceeded by many thousand dollars the ex- penditure for the town by any preceding board of selectmen; and all of this with thousands of dollars covered up or which did not appear in that report.
 The main issue of the October election last year was Mir Pinney's extravagant ex- penditures; and Mir Morris was elected, that 1t was believed tLat he would expend less money during his administration of the office than had been expended by his predecessor. Now let us take a glance al those figures which you published and compare them.
 You state that Mir PInney's expenditures in May, June and July, 1894 were beyond | the bounds of reason and censure MT Pinney | for his eXtravagant use of the towns funds cannot understand what appears to me | to be an inconsistency. looked over the | figures you published two or three differ ent times for the purpose of ascsr tainiDg what you meant by stating that l you had made some startling and surpris l ing discoveries. From the head line, was led to believe that Mir Morris by his skill as inancier and as a careful ant prudent manipulator of the affairs of th' town had saved the taxpayers large sum | of money and I thereupon compared th figures you stated, showing the expendi lures by Mir Pinney for the same period o time. I supposed of course that you hat compared them and you knew that the re suit would show MT Morris to good advan tage; but l must coDfe ess I was astonishe' | to find that the figures showed exactly th contrary.
 The figures you gave show that M Morris expended in May, June and July 1895, $27 ,552 O3; that during correspond ing months in the preceding year NJ Pinney expended SPA, 322 "A; s, 229 29 il favor of Mir Pinney's management. a against Mir Morris for the same period 0 time. When Pinney spent $24. 322 74 you said he was extravagant. Whe Morris spent $27, ,552 03 in correspondin months in the following year. you compl ment him in extravagant terms and say h is the watch dog of the treasury.
 The difficulty with Mir Morris is of tn same general character as that which Nj
 Pinney labored under; only our frien
 Perry suffers more from the difficulty tha
 did Pinney. Pinney liked to never sa
 no to anyone, but occasionally his bac
 would stiften up little and thereby som
 of the raids on the treasury were pr'
 vented. But Perry is ev.,rything to Il
 men, never says nay to anyone, and as
 result his figures show very badly in con
 pnrison. Then for fee friend kendrIc writes what a great statesman and final cier the young man Is.
 By the way, 1 should like to see tt items under the head of legal eXpens,
 and compare those with the legal expense of the preceding years; and we all kno
 that the kelloggs are no chickens at th
 business.
 | CONSISTENCY.