The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-23
TO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY
CAN EXPLAIN.
M'CARDY GIVES 1T UP QUICK.
OTHER CITY OFFICIALS ARE IN
THE DARK ABOUT THE
NATTER.
WHERE DID THAT $4,000 COME IN
Was 1t the discovery That the Comp
tFOIier Made One Night About
School Funds?

The Pioneer Press yesterday morn
ing in an editorial headed "An Eco
ncmical Showing" endeavored to show
that the present Republican council
was not responsible for the increase
in the tax estimate budget this year
of $99, 200 more than the amount in 1896.
To figure out this, the editorial stat
ed: s4sas--asas-+-s.-ss M
The official budget for 1896, as published,
shows that only $150,000 was put in the tax
levy for the school fund AS a matter of fact
and record, the auditors books show that the
school taxes levied for that year amounted
stated in the budget"
Not only did the Official budget for
1896, as published, show that $500
was put in the tax budget for that
year, but the official resolution adopted
by the council in January, 1885, and ap-
proved by the mayor, Jan. II, 1896, read
as follows:
Assembly File No. 2577-That the amounts
of money necessary to be raised by the tax
levy to be made in the year 1896 for carrying
on the business of the different departments
and funds of said city be and the same are
hereby designated as follows: School fund,
S150,0O0. And the city clerk is hereby in
structed to transmit to the county auditor of
Ramsey county copy of this resolution i'm
mediately after the approval of the same
1t was supposed at the time by the
SGLSICI puOl1C anu dll DuI lew Oh
the officials of the city that the sum
of $150,0G0 was the total amount to
be levied to support the schools in the
year 1896. AT the time the tax estimate
budget was discussed and adopted by
the conference committee and council
in January, 1885, Comptroller McCardy
made a fight, and by the aid of we'll
prepared figures which he presented,
Convinced the members of the confer
ence committee and the council that
all the schools would need for the year
1926 was $150,000 in the estimate and
levy. The balance of the amount neces-
sary, the comptroller said, would be
received from various sources, and he
not only mentioned them, but gave fig
uTes to bear out his assertions.
When the statement was made in
the editorial quoted above, that the
auditors books show that the school
taxes levied for that year amounted to
32,769, or $50, ,769 more than the amount
stated in the budget" it created con-
siderable surprise. The members of the
council and other officials about the
city hall yesterday said there must
have been some mistake, as the
amounts set apart for each of the de-
partments in the tax estimate were al
ways the same in the tax levy which
is made in the October following the
adoption and passage of the budget in
January.
Deputy County Auditor Bourne. seen
yesterday, SAID there was no mistake
in the figures, and there had been levied
in 1896 for school taxes 1892, 1859
The resolution adopted by the coun-
Gil in January, 1896, fixing the tax esti-
mate budget had been received at the
auditors office the day following it's ap-
proval by the mayor. The amount in
the resolution to be levied for the
school fund was $150,000 In October of
the same year, however, the levy pass
ed by the council was also filed with
the county auditor, and it provided
for levy Of two and half mills on
each dollar for school taxes The au,
ditor's Office had nothing to do with
the matter in any way and simply fol,
lowed the instructions Of the council
and levied two and half mills for
the school fund. Now that his attention
had been called to it. the change made
by the levy passed in October 1896, by
the council was over '$S2, 900 more than
the resolution passed by the council
in January, 1896, called for This in,
crease he could not explain. Usually
the figures in the estimate for each
year agreed with the tax levy, but in
this case it didn't, and that was all
he knew about it.
Comptroller McCardy glanced at the
figures when they were laid before him
! by a reporter for the G | o b and in
answer to the question of how 1t was
| possible to place $150000 in the tax esti-
mate in January and then levy for
1922, 796 in October replied:
"I give it up
Continuing, the comptroller said II
had nothing to do with those figures,
and don't know anything about them"
Assistant City Attorney Phillips said
there might be some question raised
as to the impropriety of putting $780,
600 in the tax estimate budget for a
| fund for any one year and then a few
months later levytng for $S2,0 900 more
than the sum mentioned, but In this
case 1t was perfectly legal The char
ter provided under section chapter 6,
of the special laws of 1891, that the
levy for the support and maintenance