Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-07-27
NANCES OF TIE COUNTY
kpenses Exceed Tax Levy,
Contrary to the Law.
he SYSTEM NEEDS OVERLAPPING
comptroller Kelley Will Not
Permit Overdrafts.



I,ditors of the county finances one |
eek ago today, Every Evening has |
Sken occasion to set forth in some de- |
In certain phases of that report. In |
his way, has been treated the status |
the accounts of the late Fredus A. |
.turgeon, who was delinquent tax col
Ictor in Christiana hundred, and the
uestion of the loss Of the 1000 bond
the Mechanics Loan Association,
|hich should be an asset of the county
hi publication has been made also of
comparative statement Of disburse-
tents for the last four years and of the
lens making up the resources and
abilities of the county. Each of
bese articles has contained its lesson
br the careful reader and observant
Axpayer. But the whole story OF
punty mismanagement has not been
bid, and one purpose Of the present
ttice will be to throw more light on
bme of the points involved.
Although facts have already been
published in Every Evening to show
hat the Levy Court allowed itself to
bake deficit. in ordinary receipts and
Expenditures, in each of several years,
hi an important provision Of the law
governing that body has not been en-
|hasized. The provision in question is
hat it shall not be lawful for the Levy
kourt to exceed by its expenditures
bid allowances for any fiscal year the
mount of taxes levied by the court for
ich year.
In the light of this provision, how
id it happen that on levy Of
es5, 1871. n. (including capitation tax
mounting to $4,000. which the Levy
ourt could not expect to collectl they
Epended in the year 1898, 1916. 522. 55?
! Though it is true that the county
tarted out ON January 4th, 1898, with
balance OF 500, 9l1.09, yet this has
cen shown to have been part of the
pan made in 1897 for funding the float
be debt No. 3, and as the Court House
pan of $50, 900 was coming due, all Of
hich except paltry 500, has since
zen refunded, this balance from the
ban of 1897, should properly have been
cid to pay off the Court House bonds.
Adhering strictly to the requirements
the law, the Levy Court could not
ave expended a greater amount during
b9S than the amount levied, after de.
ucting therefrom the rebates and
rors in assessments, which may be
irly estimated at s35. 200 to $40, 600,
hd therefore would have kept their
Expenditures down to something like
P50. 600, instead of allowing them to
zach S3l6, 900.
ONE SAFEGUARD IN COUNTY SYSTEM.
With all its shortcomings the county
stem has one point Of strength and
lat is in the one saving clause among
q many acts relating to the Levy
burt, which clause prohibits the issu-
ICE Of warrants on the county treas
or when the county is without funds
bis has proven a means of preventing
fepetition of the old time overdrafts
county accounts. An instance of the
o of this provision was shown in
Fery Evening OF July 18th, when
bmptroller Kelley declined to approve
brrants because the county did not
bve the money to meet them. He is
titled to credit for standing thus be-
zen the Levy Court and overdrafting.
Notwithstanding the excellence oil
is safeguarding provision, the sys-
m of county accounting, needs, as
% auditors say in their report, a
orough overhsuling. Taking the
Dove mentioned provision as a founda.
on, the next General Assembly should
BIT fail to pass such laws as will put II
the power of the comptroller actually
control, and to prescribe and enforce
hch regulations as will prevent thu
bunty's financial channels from becom
bg clogged with large accumulation
unpaid bills.
pc QUESTION OF uNcoLLEcTED TAXES
As the business Of the county mus
general be conducted on the basis o
be receipts from taxes, it is i'm
prtant that the collections be large ant
ompt. 1t is somewhat startling Il
BITE, therefore, that the report of tn,
unty auditors contains the statemen
lat ST8, 682.6 of taxes have beef
hareed off the books of the county
Ibis includes the taxes for the year
l9l to 1894 inclusive and portion o
xes for 1895, large sum still remain
g charged on the books for the year
lbs and 1896 and subsequent years.
The question arises as to why such
rge amount should have been charge'
The common explanation is tina
ose taxes could not be collected; tina
ey we're not received by the col
ctors; that the collectors were nc
Icountable for any taxes except thos
lid to them. OF course what has bee
barged of has gone; it is lost exceI
far as the loss may be a warning fe
10 future.
But that does not mean that tn
bportunity may not be seized to say
be balances for 1895 and 1896, which
taxes Of all kinds, amount to moi
IAN S36, 900.
1t will be understood that the tax
1895 and 1896 are in the hands
hat were known as collectors OF q
bquent taxes, appointed by IL
ceiver of taxes under the act passt
the General Assembly in lS9
Down as the Five Commissioners bill
nder this act, all unpaid taxes ON Il
Fst day of January in each year,
own by the duplicate, were turn'
yer to the collectors of delinque
&es. These collectors were require
give bonds in double the amount
Hes placed in their hands. Su.
nds were to be in form prescribed
d receiver of taxes and with sureti
proved by him. .
The collectors were required to q
10 notice that they would attend
nvenient times and places to reoei
q taxes, and on the first of May
ees remaining unpaid on their dup
tes were to be distinguished, "exce
kes on real estate or other proper
ID against persons assessed theI
tn. I"
The collectors were allowed 10 !
pit commission on tax bills exceedi
and 20 per cent on bills for 50
ss
The law appears to have been 8,
pient in every detail for the colleoti
taxes and for the final settlement
collectors for the amount placed