Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1906-06-23
DEFENDS COUNTY COURT
EXAMINER Says Charges OF tx
irayagance are Untrue.
NE GIVES FACTS AND FIGURES
Claims That Affairs of the County
Have Been Well Administered
BY Members of Court.

By Members of Court.
Martinsburg. June 81, '06.
I Editor The World:
Dear Sir-There appeared in the col
umns of The Evening World OF june
4 Is, a copy of An editorial of the Her
aid. in relation to the financial settle.
ment with Sheriff E. ID. Gardner.
This article. whether Intentionally
or not. is a mistatemenr OF the facts
relating to the levies and expenditures
of the years ending May 81, 1902. and
May 81, 1906. The purpose OF the
nresent article is to correct the erron-
eous statements and the deductions
based upon the same, and to give TO
the readers Of The World, the facts as
shown by the records OF the settle
ments of those two years, but does not
oriticise the motives that prompted
the article in the Herald.
1t is true that the present 'Jounty
oonrt went into office in January 1908,
hut at that time their duties so far as
related to financial matters were TO
complete the payment OF bills cover
ing estimates made by the former
court, during the fiscal year beginning
/ .June /. 1902 and ending May 81. 1913.
At the June term, 1902, the former
court laid the levy of 50 cents upon
the real and personal property oil the
COMMIT based anon the M re.
uuirements Of the county for the year
ending May 1908. That court after
making this levy paid by orders the
bills contracted by them under the
same. at the June, September y
December terms of 1902, leaving the
payment of their bills due to the
March term of 1908 for the new court
To settle. which would complete the
expenditures of the fiscal year, this
thew did ont of the said levy of '
Therefore the settlement OF May
1909, should not have been taken as a
basis Of comparison, but that OF NAV
1903. But as they rave taken the set
dement, of MAY, 1909 we will permit
it 10 stand. as the basis of comparison
Although the expenditures of the set
tlement of May 1903, exceeded the
year 1902 by ST.. 255. 81. 1t is not cor
rect that the expenditures OF the
county in the settlement of NAV, 1907
were 1923, 1853. 60. as stated BY the Her
aid article. They were So, 0SS. 40 more.
OF a total of SOS, 237. The author OF
the Herald's article for some reason
omitted to add in the bills paid by ex-
Sheriff j. H. Smith.
Now as to the settlement OF May
1906. The Herald's article states that
a levy was made that would produce
80. 794 9S more than the law allowed.
This statement is incorrect, for the
reason that the levy of June l905 was
DELAYED and not made until July 10.
1906. and was based upon the total
valuation of real and personal proper
ty supplied TO the county clerk, by
the assessors and reported by hin to
the court as amounting to Sc, 500, 500.
The levy was fixed, based upon this
report, at 43 cents for general county
purposes and one and one-half CENTS
for payment of county bonds. produce
ing in gross. with tho estimated rail-
road tax $33. 1854. 95 or s501. 26 less than
the law allowed.
The revenue of the year ending
Nav 1906 was reduced by erroneous
assessments 81, 172. SO, representing on
the assessment books a valuation of
1887. 700. This sum is therefore a pro-
per deduction from the amounts
charged as revenue and reduces the
gross income of 1906 to $32. 573.2 "a and
the amount expended of 1906 to $751;
439 as.
The amount expended per settlement
of Nav 1902 was S2S. 257. The increase
of expenditures of 1906 over the Ok.
penditures Of 100 amounted to 49,.
1872. as.
This increase is accounted for as
follows:
Expended per settlement
of May 1906 for smallpox
but not required in set
Element of 1902 1854 90
Expended in increase cost
OF printing books and
stationery over settlement
of May 1902 1,147 19l
Increase in cost of Main
tenance of Poor in the
various parishes of the
county over 1902 900 SO
Circuit court costs, provid-