The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-13
Auditor Not to Blame for Not
Crediting Taxes.
Does So Only When Receipts
Come From Treasurer.
NOT YET EXPLAINED.
Delinquent County Treasurers
Offer No Excuse.
System by Which State Taxes
Are Paid.

A good many people do not under
stand the reasons why the state au-
ditor's books do not show the receipts
of 1903 taxes which the seven delin-
quent county treasurers ought to have
made last January and which at least
one of them claims to have made
Some people think the trouble is in
the auditors Office, and the Atchison
Globe wants to know what it is
The trouble is not in the auditors
books, but it lies between the county
treasurers and the state treasurer.
The books in the auditors office are
simply a check on the state and coun-
ty treasurers, but they do not show
anything except what is reported TO
the auditors office.
The collection of state taxes is con-
Quoted like this. The county treaSurerS
are required to remit all the state mon
ey they have twice a year, in January
and July, following the semi-annual tax
payments. The money is sent by check
or draft on local banks to the state
treasurer, and is accompanied by
statement showing the funds to which
the remittance should be credited. The
state treasurer does not Immediately is
sue a receipt for the remittance, but
turns the draft over to Topeka bank
for collection. As soon as he is in
formed that the draft has been collect
ed and placed to his credit in the To-
peka bank the state treasurer issues
receipt for the money in triplicate. One
which is his proof that the money has
been paid. Another is sent to the coun-
ty clerk, which is his authority for
crediting the county treasurer with
having paid the state. The third is
given to the state auditor, which is his
authority for crediting the payment to
the county making it, and he also
charges the amount to the state treas
urer. This is the legal way to conduct
the business.
The state auditors books do not show
any payments until the state treasurer
sends him the receipt showing that it
comes to the auditors office, but 1T
merely keeps check on those who do
handle the money.
In the present instance the auditors
books do not show any credits for
seven counties on their state taxes
for 1903. There should have been
large remittances from each county
in January. The quarterly statements
of five of these counties, Bourbon,
Geary, johnson, Miami and Smith,
in Indicate that no remittances were
made in January but that the money
was kept by the county treasurers;
just why is not definitely known. The
county treasurer of Lyon county
claims, according to his home papers,
to have RENTED 10 per cent. of the
total state tax of Lyon county last
January, which would amount TO
about $4,000. If this was received
by the state treasurer he never re-
ported 1t to the auditor, and the
Lyon county treasurer consequently
has never received credit for it on
the state auditors books. In other
words. this $4,000 has been since last
January getting from Lyon county to
the place where its receipt is recorded
by the state auditor. In the mean
time somebody has probably been get
inc fha of a
" treasurer does not show any state
funds in his hands at the close of last
January, but whether he claims to
nave made any remittance is not
Known.
Thus it is up to the five delinquent
reasurers who held on to state money |
% explain why they did it, and the trou- |
Die in the Labette and Lyon county |
If those counties and the state treas |
irer. The law makes 1t the duty for |
he state treasurer to call for state
nents from delinquents as to the
mount of money in their hands belong
ng to the state and if they do not re-
pond satisfactorily it is the state
reasurer'S duty to report them to the
attorney general Attorney General
Coleman says State Treasurer Kelly
las reported no delinquents to him for
bout a year, which means that none
ave been reported for being delinquent
N 1905 taxes, the first half of which was
lue laSL
Governor Bailey was subjected to
great deal of criticism year ago
because he refused to ask the legisla-
ure to make an appropriation for the
elief of the flood sufferers. His po-
IticaI adversaries, especially, set up
howl of indignation because he adj
Used against taking a large amount
f money out of the state treasury to
eimburse those who had been struck
" the food
That his position was correct is
ow almost generally admitted. Some
f those who were most bitter in their
enunciation now cOncede that he
id what was right. If he allowed
UGH an appropriation last year it
rould have set a precedent for the
anne thing this year. Here are some
f the newspaper comments which
re now being made on the subject:
Atchison Globe: Governor Bailey
-as wise. Had he permitted the flood
elief of year ago, the state would
ave been cinched again this year.
lis enemies who roasted him should
Omit he did the sensible thing.
independence Tribune: Last year
hen Governor Bailey indicated that
e would not yield to the popular de-
hand to sign a bill for the relief of
God sufferers, he was roasted to a
nish. Thousands had been ruined
nd it would have taken half a mill
on dollars to have given each suf-