The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-07-28
cpMuNps' $1,000 CRITICISM.

EDMUNDS' $1,000 CRITICISM.
An alleged expert who is a member
of the American" party has been 60
ing over the books of the city auditor
with a view to securing campaign ma
terial for his political organization. For
the services of this man, Edmunds, the
taxpayers, not the American" party,
must pay the sum of $1,000. This is at
the rate of about 500 day of actual,
honest work on the part of the so-called
expert. In the light of his report it is
safe to say that a majority of the voters
of Salt Lake City-fOr a majority voted
against the American" city ticket
will be of the opinion that the money
was utterly wasted. And even mem
bers of the American" party can hard
reading Of the Edmunds report fails to
show that the few criticisms he makes
are we'll founded-the f1aring headlines
of the morning American" organ TO
the contrary notwithstanding. Ed
munds evidently tried hard to earn his
money, that is, from the political stand
point. He was directed to prepare a
statement showing disbursements from
After doing this and not finding enough
grounds for criticising the Morris ad
ministration, he undertook a COMPARE
son Of disbursements since Jan. l. 1906
with those of 1905, and entered into a
long dissertation on the alleged econ
omy of the "reformers."
The item of engineering expense, for
example, is made much of Any fool
ought to know that the engineering ex
penses of the Big Cottonwood conduit
could not be as heavy since the first of
January as they were last year. The
reason for this is simple enough. Last
year all the preliminary work had 10
be done The route had to be surveyed.
the plans and specifications prepared.
the estimates made. The only necessary
engineering expense now is for inspec-
tors. There is no excuse for criticism
of the Morris administration on this
point.
Edmunds digresses from the work he
was paid to do long enough TO criticise
the manner in which the bonds were
disposed of. He points to the fact that
the city has now more than 100000 in
the bond fund-the fund the reform
ers' in their campaign last year de-
clared TO be exhausted-that isn't draw
ing interest, and that there will be
$500 900 in bank, not drawing interest
Dec. 81, 1906. He is by no means fair
enough to explain that Fisher Harris,
the last Democratic city treasurer, COL
lected interest on city deposits and
turned the money into the city treasury.
Edmunds is expressing no wonder as
to why this money is not drawing in
terest under the reform" administra-
ton. At least if it is drawing interest
the money, according to the hired man
of the "reformers,' is decidedly not go
ing into the city treasury. Some ex-
PLANTATION of this would furnish the tax
payers with mighty interesting reading.
Let an inquiry be started as to whether
or not interest is being paid on the
city's deposits. If So who is getting the
money; if no interest is being paid have
somebody give a reason why. Why
should the banks not pay interest on
the city's deposits? And if they do pay
it. why doesn't the city get it?
And while Edmunds was criticising
and explaining, why didn't he say
something about the gift of $4,000 to
Pat Moran? Was it because he couldn't
charge the Morris administration with
it?
The sole purpose of the formulation
of the report and it's publication at this
time is to distract attention from the
increased tax levy, made necessary by
the riot of reckless extravaganza that
has characterized the reform" admin
istration since its inception. Further
more, the report was as unnecessary as
it is dishonest. in purpose. Before Au-
ditor Felt left Office at the end of last
year he prepared a report covering
every expense and receipt. IL was in
tended to inform the taxpayer honestly
Of the condition of the city's finances.