The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-21

The Journal has a copy of the report of
the auditor of one of the best and wealthiest
counties in the State. 1t is we'll printed
contains sixteen pages and is dignitied with
cover The exhibits run from A to X
inclusive, and there is no lack of figures
One can ascertain the amount of the county
debt, the condition of the sinking fund, the
aggregate receipts and disbursements, and
yet with all these entries the taxpayer who
reads the report will be as ignorant of the
most important information which such a
report should contain as if none had been
made. There is not a word to show that
the County Commissioners received dollar
of compensation, yet he has made a state
ment by which it appears more than 81 900
was paid these officials. There is not a
figure to show how much money was paid
individual officers except the county super
intendent and county attorney The net
sums are Jumped into a gross sum. There
is no explanation, and the figures cannot be
understood. In the list Of collections are
the auditors fees clerks fees, recorder $
fees and sheriff's fees. In the list of dis
bursements the same fees for the same
amount are given The auditors fees are
supposed to be the amount collected. but
if paid into the treasury, why disbursed to
that officer? He is paid gross sum by the
law-are the fees paid back as part of his
salary? The compensation of the county
clerk is also fixed by law-did his fees
amount to the exact amount fixed for his
compensation, or did they not amount to
as much as the fixed salary, and is the bal
ance paid him contained in the general
amount covered by salaries? The same
questions apply to the sheriff
Such reports of county affairs are not
what the public will be interested in be-
cause they do not convey the kind of in
formation desired. Taxpayers not only de-
sire to know the amount of money ex-
pended, but the purposes for which it is
expended. Above all things they desire to
know how much of the revenues go to Off
Gals, and for what service. Though such
reports may not be designed to cover up off,
cial expenses, they are so concealed in this
report that the salaries of the county SUI
perintendent and county attorney are all
that are explicitly stated. Some of them
are fixed by statute, but it would be Well to
state whether the officers who collect fees
obtain sufficient to pay the expenses of their
offices or not. Taxpayers have a right to
know how much compensation each county
commissioner has received during the year.
and for what service it is paid. In this case
it is evident that half the compensation of
the commissioners is taken from the funds
collected for free gravel roads. In short
now that public attention has been awak-
ened to these matters the taxpayers will
take more interest in public expenditures
and will demand reports that report rather
than conceal.
The Legislature should see to it that off,
GERS having financial reports to make shall
make them clear and comprehensive in
stead of mystifying. The bill to provide a
uniform system of bookkeeping, already pre-
scented, may help. 1t will certainly result in
a record which those interested can consult
and obtain correct information.