The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1898-02-16
COUNTY OFFICIALS At WAR;
Remarkable Statements By the County
commisSiOners and County Auditors.
TURN on THE LIGHT.


Commissioners Of Somerset county for
the year 1857, published last week in
three of our local contemporaries, there
appears the following remarkable libel
Gus statement. under the caption OF
Remarks:
II has come 10 pass that the majority OF
lhe board OF County Auditors has filed
with the annual report of that body a rig
inarole OF So called objections 10 the
methods of doing business in the Com
missloners' Office. A whole week of the
| valuable time Of these official nOnentities
was consumed in the formulation of this
] Iying. sianderous and malicious TRADE
against the commissioners Office. Polit-
lcal lmbeciles, who are without mind or
stamina 81 their Own, should never be ell
sNaieu 70 Important and responsible pub
| ilc Positions Furthermore, the present
board ot County Commissioners has been
uSeieSsiy surcnarged S30209, interest on
money that WIS necessarily borrowed 10
meet the current expenses of the county,
4 without reason or excuse for such sur
eharge, aud without citing any law 10 sns-
! tain their reck less exercise sSf the sur
/ charging privilege. This action will serve
ONLY 70 increase the expenses of the cOun-
] " by litigation that will necessarily fol-
/ low 20 show these bumpiious Auditors
their inexcusable folly. Public accounts
are always the legitimate subjects for cor
! rection and honest Investigation but they
must not be eOntOrted for the manufac-
tnre OF political capital for any political
| iaciiOn. But this Is not all. the report
OF the County Auditors filed in the Pro-
thonot2ry,s oflice is in itself a mass of err
rors and bOnglings that would shame a
schOol-boy 70 be its unhappy author. On
psge Of the said Auditors Report the
Total receipts by the County Treasurer of
STATE taxes Tor years prior 10 1877 Il calcu-
lated To be 81, ,0SS 81, when in fact the
amount thereof Is 81, ,9}S 6L An error in
favor of said County Treasurer of $500 50. /
/ On page Of said Auditors Report there
Is an error of calculation in the grand
| Total Of taxes received by the County
Treasurer amounting to S5003 in IA
vor Of the said County Treasurer. On
| page seven OF the aforesaid report the
Auditors have bungled the total re-
ceipts for orders paid" which is unin-
teiliglble, 70 say the least. on the same
page the Auditors strike their balance
/ thus: Balance due VIM. Winters, Esq,
County Treasurer, s9,0H 81. The true
balance IS s., 997 81 but this balance il
not due 10 Wm. Winters, Esq, Co. |
Treas" but IS due 10 the county OF SOM |
erset from VIM. Winters, treasurer. The |
apparent shortage of $3.50 81 in the credit
10 County Treasurer Winters is neverthe- |
less literally made up to that officer by !
placing 10 his credit the entire balance in |
his hands belonging to the county of
Somerset, by which that worthy officer |
would gain, by the Auditors Report. the |
munidcent gift of SIS ,095. Il, If the said re-
port were previously correct, but the fact |
is that if this laundering piece of audit |
ing" were allowed 10 stand, County |
Treasurer Winters would actually gain |
SlSO4 % by the new peculiar Bowman |
Rhoads- Hileman system of "bookkeep- |
ing" which those worthless would fain |
impose upon the Commissioners office. |
Not even the surcharging which the |
Auditors have transcended their authorl- |
ty to inflict upon the County Commits !
sioners has been correctly DONE On |
order No SD VIM. p. Meyers, the Com |
missioners are surcharged with Sl42J0, |
while the order itself calls for only $3.50. |
Lastly, in reply TO the Auditors solemn |
objections and 'interpositiOns," we |
might retort: Before you attempt to |
regulate the methods of business IN the /
Commissioners Office, non should learn /
% Gudit." But this would 30 base fiat-
terry, because such an aduS1niOn would |
imply that a majority of that body Gould /
ever learn 10 audit. IL Is only justice 70 /
County Auditor Sipe to mention that that /
gentleman signed the Auditors report /
under a InisappreheusiOn of its contents, /
and that his signature thereto was OBJ /
tanned by resortiug to misrepresentation /
that would do credit 10 a gang of buneo- |
steerers.
County Commissioners Gabriel Good |
and l. a. Kretchman deny in positive
terms that they ever signed the report or
that they ever authorized any person or
persons to sign it for them. On the other |
hand Commissioner Kretchman says that |
the portion of the report under the head |
ing remarks was read to him on Mon /
day e7ening, February eth, by Commits |
sioners' clerk, John q. Emert; that |
Emert said the remarks should be en-
bodied in the Commissioner report of |
the receipts and expenditures for 1897, |
wherenpon he (Kretehman) flatly and |
positively declined to sign il, and that it |
was afterwards published without his |
knowledge aud without authority from |
him.
When Mr.. Kretchman read the alleged |
Commissioners report in the columns OF |
the Somerset Democrat last Wednesday |
morning he WAS justly indignant, and |
straightway visited the Commissioners |
Office, where he demanded to know of
Commissioner Kimmel how his (Kretch= |
man'sl name came to be attached to the !
report. Commissioner Kimmel said that |
he had taken the signatures from
former report and attached them TO
the one published in the Democrat. Clerk !
Emert denied all knowledge of how the
signature OF Commissioner Kretehman
came to be attached 10 the report, and |
said that be had not authorized its publi-
cation.
Accepting the statements Of Mess-s.
Kretchman aud Good as truth, the re-
sponsibility for its authorship and publ
cation must be placed upon the remaining
member Of the board of County Commits
sioners, George F. Kimmel.
Why Commissioner Kimmel seeks to
engage in a quarrel with the board of
County Auditors is Hot known; but from
the character of the allegations made in
that part of the report headed remarks"
it must be evident TO every taxpayer in
the county that there is something vitality
wrong with the conduct of the county's
business that demands investigation.
sNhere there is so much smoke, there
must be some fire.
Under the circumstances the duty of the
taxpayers is clear. The County Auditors
have fled their report which the Com
rnissioners, in a published report, have
declared to be false and incorrect. Their
only recourse lies in a Thorough examin-
alton Of the conduct Of the public busi-
ness transacted in the County Commis-
sioners' Office duriBg the past five years
/ by a competent expert, whose report
should be presented TO the court for final
disposal
We now turn to the report of the re-
eeipts and expenditures Of Somerset
c c,unty as fled by the board Of County
/ Auditors for the year 1871, which is pub
lished elsewhere in this paper. Auditors
Clerk Hileman has discovered that sew
eraI clerical errors are to be found in the
report. and says that he will ask the Court
at the earliest opportunity for permission
to correct the same.
But it is the foot note of the Auditors
report that demands the attention Of the
taxpay ers of Somerset county. II the
Auditors have made groundless objec-
tions 70 the manner I'm which the business
! of Somerset county is transacted through
its duly accredited officers, the people
who elevated them TO Office have right
to know whether or not they have been
wrongly criticised aud censured; while,
on the other hand. if the business of the
county is transacted in the slip-shod man