New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1904-05-18
TELL OF THEIR FINDINGS
Report of Special Committee in Schil-
ling Matter.

Report of Special Committee in SChil-
ling Matter.
Lack of space prevented the Review
from publishing the report of the spe-
cial committee appointed to investi-
gate Louis Schilling's books in it's
last issue. The report is as follows:
New Ulm, May 9, 1904.
To THE HONORABLE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF New ULM:
GENTLEMEN: Your committee to
whom was referred the report of city
clerk Bobleter relative to the system
of bookkeeping in use in the city
clerks Office beg leave to report as
| follows: With reference to the water
main assessments on Fifth North
street for the year 1899, we find that in
that year the Board of Public Works
levied assessments against certain
property owners for this Improvement
and that such assessments were during
that year confirmed by the city coun-
Gil. We also find that the council at
that time had made an arrangement
with said property owners whereby
they were not to pay these assessments
until they had tapped said mains; that
owing to such arrangement with said
property owners, no warrant for the
| collection of these assessments was
ever placed in the city treasurer's
hands, and no assessment rolls were
adopted by the city council to be de-
| livered to the county auditor. From
this state of facts, it is evident that it
was not the duty of former city clerk
Schilling to issue a warrant for the
collection of these as assessments, nor to
/ deliver assessment rolls therefor to the
county auditor. If any blame can be
attached to Mr.. Schilling whatever in
this matter, it is simply in the manner
Of keeping the record of these assess
ments. The only record kept is con-
tanned in the record of the proceedings
of the Board Of Public Works. This
record is simply a record of the pro-
ceedings of the Board, and should not
have been used as record of those
who had paid and of those who had
not paid their respective assessments.
This method while perfectly clear and
plain to Mr.. Schilling, was somewhat
difficult for the present city clerk to
understand. At most, however, this
was of slight Importance. Your COM
mittee are of the opinion that Mr..
Schilling is deserving of no censure
in the matter.
AS to the cemetery records your
committee find that three lots in tract
'sE", being lots No. SO, 60 and 81, are
occupied, and that the records do not
show this fact. For lack of time your
committee was unable to check up the
cemetery records to ascertain whether
! burial permits were ever issued for
these lots.
We have, however, with the assist
ance of the cemetery keeper obtained
the necessary information to complete
the records as to two of these lots, and
will have information as to the third
shortly The failure of the former
city clerk to enter in the records the
names of the persons inferred in these
lots was evidently an oversight. Con-
sidering the great amount of detail
work in his Office, such an oversight
is not unusual, and we are not dis
posed to censure him for the error. It
does not appear that he received any
money whatever from the disposition
of these lots.
AS to the sale of stone referred to in
sold by the city last year to the
amount S32.75 was turned into the city
treasury. The remainder being the
sum of S12, is in the form of an &C
count against. a local contractor. For
this account, Mr.. Schilling had pri-
vate memorandum among the city
| clerks records; which he produced
, AS to the matter of providing new
: system of books for the city, your com
: mittee feel that while the present sys
tenn may be improved upon and {
change is perhaps desirable, neverthe
less, owing to the financial condition
of the city at this time, the presen
system should be continued for thu
time being.
In conclusion we may say that this
investigation has been confined strict
ly to the items referred to in the cit,
clerks report. We have not attempt
ed to make an investigation of tn,
city clerks books other than such a.
Y was necessary to look into these mat
tiers. We may say, however, that 81
far as this investiga alton goes we d.
y not find that former city clerk Schil
ling has ever wrongfully taken cen
B of the city's money, nor failed to &C
y count for any money paid to him OF
y the city's account, and that the rec
b ords which we examined are in goo
\ shape, subject to the exceptions men
toned.
b Respectfully submitted,
y ERNST GIESEKE,
y EMIL WICHERSKI,
b HERMAN NAGEL,
Committee.
y FROM Hot TO COLD.