The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-17
DEMOCRATS IN THE AUDITORS OFFICE
Nearly $1,000 Allowed Taggartas Auditor FOr Services Be-
sides the Enormous Fees and Perquisites All of Which
in Less Than Year Amounted to $50, 753

Last Wednesday the Sentinel published
figures showing that County Auditor Smith
had been allowed $S,31412 for various serv-
ices he had rendered the county by direction
OF the commissioners the past year in addi-
ton to his salary. Each item for which he
was paid was specified and the table pub
shed in the paper showed just what serv-
ices he had rendered for every dollar paid
to him. The paper did not publish a table
showing the sums that were drawn by
Thomas Taggart the last eleven months
and seven days he was in office. The total
sums Taggart was allowed for that period
in addition to his stipulated salary, his pay
for managing the school funds and the
fees OF his Office, estimated at $1,000 a year,
amounted to $1S903.42. That was good deal
more than twice what Auditor Smith has
received for the past years extra services
Furthermore, 1t was more by $700.24 than
Auditor Smith has received during his en-
tire term. Up to date he has received in
allowances $176O31S, as against SIS .3O3.42
Taggart was allowed the last eleven
months and seven days of his term. There
is another thing. For S10s7T9.43 Of this
noney that was allowed Taggart there are
no bills on file or anything else to show
what he did to earn it other than the state
v
county auditor" There ought to be bills
on file showing just what those services
were. The Sentinel, in it's tabulated state
ment shows by items what Auditor Smiths
allowances were for
Bills 'for services alleged to have been
rendered during other years of the Taggart-
Johnson administration of the Office of
county auditor, are also missing from the
files In the aggregate they represent
enormous sums. But that has nothing to
do with this story. 1t is the purpose at this
time to deal with the last eleven months
they were in control.
Nov. TO- 1894, he was paid 50 ,524.50 "for
services as. per account fled" and Nov. 80
$3,6O4.& for the same alleged purpose. There
is no account on file and absolutely nothing
to show what Taggart did to entitle him to
the money. This is also true of a sum of
sS.650.1 for which a warrant was drawn in
his favor June 3, 1895. Not only are there
no accounts on file to show what Taggart
did to entitle him to the money in these
cases, but the warrants that were issued to
him for the money have disappeared from
the file cases Last week Deputy Auditor
Shepard went through the green covered
paper boxes In which all the warrants the
county has paid are supposed to be kept.
Old warrants with rotten rubber bands
about them. showing that they had not been
disturbed since filed away were taken out
of the green boxes. 1t was found that the
warrants on which Taggart had drawn the
money in these cases for which there is
nothing to show what he did were missing,
with one exception. and that was for the
small amount of $551 80. for which warrant
was drawn Nov. 30, 1894. What facts the
warrants disclosed that the records do not.
can only be surrnised.
ONE BILL SMUGGLED BACK.
But that is not the worst that appears
with reference to the money Taggart was
paid in the last few months ne was in the
auditors Office. 1t will be noticed in the
table below that there is one item of $500
which Taggart got April 6, 1885, The regis
ter of orders on the county treasurer, or
warrants, shows that this was for services
Up to last Thursday night there was not a
thing to show that Taggart had ever been
allowed this sum by the commissioners.
The original claim bill, with the commis-
sioners' allowance, noted on the back, was
missing There was no mention of it in
the permanent minute books. The warrant