Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1906-08-10

Auditor Graham needs no champion in
The Phoenix, but the Rutland Herald and
its owner, the Democratic candidate for
governor, persist in repeating the at
tack on him which Clement made in his
Brattleboro speech, in which Clement
embodies a letter to him from the ex-
pert accountant he has employed to
criticise the auditors bookkeeping. The
Herald renewed the attack Tuesday in
an editorial based on a clipping from The
Phoenix of last week. The Herald and
its candidate may not choose to retract
or correct their wrong statement, but
the whole thing is so simple that they
cannot fool the voters Of the state.
Previous to Dec. 10, 1902, certain items
OF expenditure including the debentures
Of the General Assembly, were by law
paid by the state treasurer without an
order being drawn therefor by the
auditor. It appeared on the treasurer's
books and the auditor had nothing to do
with 1t except as he audited the treasur-
er's account These expenditures never
appeared in the auditors account prior
to Dec 12, 1902, because they could not do
so under the law. The expenditures for
legislative expenses for the fiscal year
commencing July /, 1902, and up to Dec.
12, 1902. were made under the old law,
without an order from the auditor. The
books of the treasurer show it. the
treasurers report shows 1t, and the
auditors report and the notations there
on show It, The legislature of 1902 by
act No. 1856 required that the auditor Of
accounts draw an order once in every six
months for such expenditures as the
treasurer had properly made. for which
no order was by law required. This
provision is contained in Sec. Of act
No. 156 OF the acts of 1902, which took
effect Dec. r. 1902.
Any boy in the grammar school can take
the law of 1902, the report Of the auditor
Of accounts and the treasurer's report,
and can figure 1t out in three minutes.
Mr.. Clement has not and cannot point out
| the omission of single item In Auditor
| Graham's report. He cannot name
single item that appears where II ought
not He cannot find an error in the
treasurer's account. II he wanted to be
fair with the auditor why does he not
tell in his speeches about that change in
the law, II he knows it. and why does
1
he and his accountant refer, on page 273
of the auditors report. states at the
very beginning that the items of legis-
lative expense were taken from the books
OF the state treasurer and that the alb
stract of expenses appearing on page
269 of the auditors report states it
again.
Clement has known this every time he
mas made his speech. He has known, II
he has read the law as he ought to have
read 1t, that the state auditor had to go
to the treasurer's books for all legisla-
tive expenses previous to Dec II. 1902,
and he knows. too, that the state treas
urer's books have always been open TO
him, and II he could find sipgle error
there we should nave heard Of It long
ago. The only charitable view that can
be taken is that Mr.. Clement does not
know about the change in the law. or
did not know about il when he first made
the charge.
Mr. Clement doubts the ability Of the
auditor to stand a cross examination. We
do not but we do doubt the ability OF
Mr.. Clement to stand cross examination
for one hour, and, II he wants to try, we
should be glad to furnish him a hall in
any town of this state where it could be
procured at any time during the cam
paign, and we will get some of the SO
called ring to cross-examine him foi
one hour, and see how he comes out