The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1904-10-06
Signed,
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT.

L
We fully concur in the joint re-
port, but wish to state in supplement
that we believe it does not contain all
the information to which the people
of the State are entitled from us, or
sufficient to enable them to see its
full import. There was entire unan-
unity as regard to the facts developed.
The most material and important
point in the charge was that which is
omitted from the joint report, namely,
that the list OF payments S4,71S, "a,
payments to Bell, everyone reads,
%. j. Bell services and expenses,
so when the suggestion came that
there might be typographical error in
the explicit statement of the auditor S
report that the items aggregating
So. 945 80 were per diem'' payment,
and that instead part were really for
expenses - it was refuted by the
simplest bookkeeping methods, which
showed 81, 972.82 remaining for ex-
penses," and accounted for nowhere
else except in the items Of testing
cattle" ETC., wherein Mr.. Bells
chief duties ss cattle commissioner
lay.
So the charge every item and figure
was from the auditors report, verify
ing by method corresponding to ledger
and journal. The statement against
MI. Bell, wrong and deeply to be re-
GREETED, was so only because and to the
extent that the auditors report was
wrong wrong in seven distinct
| points; two of them in printing, two
more in clerical work, and three more
in entering up as for his services
| and expenses" payments for other peo-
pies services and expenses, as the
report plainly did not intend. This
| evidence, on which the charge was
based, moreover, was the only pos
sible evidence, outside of the vouch-
ers themselves, and it is pity they
were not examined as the Democratic
! Committee proposed before election.
| Though late, from the circumstances
of the case, the proposal was early in
the day ON the night of which the
Republican State Committee professed
to have begun an Investigation alone.
The truth, as we have found it, is
far from what the auditors report
shows, either with or without correc-
tion of typographical error, and still
further from any other statement ever
published.
The most serious fact developed
which our associates decline to join ui
in reporting, on the ground that it il
beyon1 the proper scope of the inquiry
is that of the So. 269 81 of expenses and
disbursements, only $l4S. AZ is covered
by vouchers beyond Mr.. Bells OWL
statements-al but two under oath.
While we find nothing that justifiel
any charge, or intimation even, tina
the accounts rendered are not hon
est, they are accounts" only, no
vouchers for accounts, and it is wa,
of doing public business that canno
be too severely condemned, that woulC
, ruin any large private business, tina
, invites infinite abuse, as demon
strated by the fact that expenditure
of this official expense class hav
been multiplied tenfold in the pas
, few years, and that in our opinion i
} clearly illegal under Section 305 O
: Vermont Statutes, which requires al
accounts to be accompanied by vouch
l ers so far as possible"-a la,
which, instead of being superseded b
r that of 1896, is only made the NOR
8 stringent by it. Under the Unite
r States law barely a third at the out
8 side would have been allowed on thes
accounts, and any properly organize
IS government would have required il
I. dependent vouchers-easy to have tt
: ken-for a great majority Of them.
l. o. III. Davenport,
Clarence II. Senter.
= REJOINDER.