The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-17

in payment of the amount, which Taggart
must have Endorsed before drawing the
money from the treasurer, was also gone.
The warrant is still among the many miss
ing documents of the Taggart administra-
ton, but the bill, with the allowance of the
commissioners, noted on the back, has been
returned. 1t was struggled back by c. II.
Spencer. clerk of the Board of Public
Works, and e. NJ. johnson, city controller
and candidate for county auditor. How it
was accomplished is told elsewhere.
Following are the amounts Taggart re-
ceived for services" according to the rec
ord of warrants. but for which there is not
line of writing to show what-he did:
NOV. ~, 1894 .......................,... $3.52450
nov. w. 1874. ....................-..... 3,6O4.S2
June 3, 1885,. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 3.65011
Total ............... .............. $40 77e AZ
Taggart might just have put this amount
of the money down in his pocket without
having turned hand over to earn it, from
all the records show.
There have been claims that Taggart was
not operating under the fee and salary law
This is true. But the assertion that he
got no salary and that his sole in
come was from the fees of his Office
is absolutely false. Taggart received a SAL
ne was paid quarterly $1,172.7S for "manag-
ing the school fund that his deputy was
investing in bad loans on the real estate of
Taggart's friends. 1t will be observed be-
low that Taggarts salary for the eleven
months was but little less than is paid Au-
ditor Smith, whose salary is $l75OO a year.
Smith gets nothing for managing the school
fund. According to the Sentinel, and the
figures are not disputed here, his allowances
this year have been $S,31412, compared with
S1S,SO342 Taggart drew from the treasury
In every other respect except that the audi
tor does not receive the fees of the office
and gets nothing but his salary the present
law is just as it was before.
JOHNSON CONTROLLED THE OFFICE.
Before. e. NJ. Johnson was deputy audi
tor, and as such transacted the affairs of
the commissioners, just as the present dep
uty auditor does. Nothing could be done in
the office without his knowledge 1t would
have been impossible for Taggart to have
received these sums, for which there is
nothing on record to show he ever did a
thing, without his deputys knowledge and
consent. 1t would be interesting to find the
warrants drawn on the county treasurer in
Taggarts favor. They would disclose on
their face whether Johnson himself drew
them or whether it was one of the clerks
in the Office. But they are gone. The war
rants for the items below are on file, but
the others are gone. Those remaining are:
No. 66,129, for services ............ 1851. SO
No 6, 3d. for placing addresses on
tax duplicates ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. $4,000
No. 1922 making transfer books. 115O.OO
4NO. f0,E40 pats l,1l3.4 40
No. 1926, Keeping index .............. 1850
The warrants for salary and the different
amounts for managing the school fund are
in the proper filing case. as we'll as those
mentioned above. All others that might
throw light the miscellaneous expense
account that foots up SIS, 5O3.42. as shown
below, have disappeared, and with them the
evidence as to what the auditors deputy,
K. M. Johnson, knew of the transactions
and what he had to do with them. Every
body knows that Mr.. Johnson ran the office
and that he was the auditor de facto.
Appended is table that shows the vari-
Gus sums that Taggart drew from the treas
ury the last months of his service as aud
itor, including those for which he had moth
ing to show that he ever rendered the
county any service.