Arizona silver belt., 1904-02-04
CHA COUNTY FINANCES
,,sver to Article In Last Silver !" ps,t Signed "Tax Payer."

ReU, StSh>S
 ,r,o statement published in the
 ,'rp BELT of January l4, 1904,
 .n,;oned the itemized expenses for ro,r 1903, which foot up $21 ,2s6 07,
 ns.oypepses actually incurred during ,no ~ year 1903 were stated in the SILVER r.,, of January 2l, 1901, as aggre-
 ,,ipc S26, ,5J6 O7, there having been S"snrted from the s27, 2s6 O., the total
 nonnt paid s750 as expense incurred ,n roo2, and therefore, not properly a na,t of the county expenses for 1903.
 An item of Sl05 that was overlooked :, opr cstimate of January 2l, was ex. ,,,osa of Keeping cattle in Thompson Barclays corral in 1902 and also made to appear as a cost of the year ,o5g This deducted leaves the real N oynenSeS of the county $26, ,i3l.0 .01 ip- stead of $26, ,536 07.
 .I "Tay Payer" asserted that the item 'f ofs75O carried over from 1902 would h, more than offset in the last quarter of 1903. which is entirely false, as the noard did not adjourn until January ll 1901, and all persons having claims against the county had plenty of time Ia present them. Business men are moi going to let their money remain 4 in the cOuntyS keeping needlessly three months withOutinterest-unless they take after the incognito sorehead, "TaX Payer"
 The sanitary officers expenses for inc year 1903, were, as mentioned, approximately Sl000. The new sani. ary law went into effect April l, 1903, and was in force, therefore, nine months of the year. The cost for the three quarters was s73I .34, and for the first quarter, under the old law, Andy Nays was paid sls5.5o, making the total expense for the year 1929 s4.
 The item of the Booth case was ap- proximated at $500. After carefully examining the same We find the entire amount was s675. instead of s62j, as stated by Tax Payer"
 It has been noted that the criminal business for the year 1905 was very light We give the pressnt officers credit for same. The officers of the county have not been hunting up cases but, tO the contrary, have been trying to ecOnomize and have suc- ceeded, to the discOmfiture of the said SOrehead, Tax Payer"
 Mir Tax Payer, why ia 1t that the Arizona rangers who, you claim, did "twO.thirds of the work of looking after the criminals in Gila county in l9O8' and saved the county SO much money, did not make a like saving in 1902, since they were here during that year under the same salaries and con dtions as at present?
 The Hinton case is cited by MT. Tax Payer as an instance where the rangers saved the county money, the expense to the county having been only S339 30. The fact is, it was due to the good judgment of the county officers that the same Hinton case did not mount up in the thousands. One instance is remembered few years back where one chicken case cost the county more than thousand dollars. Now, as to redeeming all Outstand. ing warrants up to January l, 1904 The board of supervisors considered everything and arrived at the con cluslOn that the county treasurer, atter calling in all warrants of 1903, would still have on hand $3655 2l, to meet the current expenses of the county until part or all Of the out standing 5000 delinquent taxes of 1903 was paid in, and if none of such delin- quent taxes Is paid which is impossible) the county can still manage very well with the money on hand until the first ot July next. It is the intention of II. C. Hitchcock to call in all out. Standing warrants up to January l., 1901, as soon as possible, as per instruc- tons of the board of supervisors, and the board in tends to continue running the county on cash basis as long as possible.
 The territorial rate of taxation for Inc year 1902 was l.13 ' 10, instead of l.37, as alleged by Tax Payer''; the rate for 1903 was l .05 The difference between the two territorial levies was not saved to the taxpayers but was ap poruoned to the following funds, which were insufficient for good ser vice; School funds cents, increasing the school revenue $775; road fund 2 cents, adding $3l0 to this fund, and general fund 7-l0 cents, increasing the fund s260 over the year 1902.
 NIT. Tax Payer claims that $5000 less money was taken from the county treasury toward the territorial tax in NJ.