The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1906-08-17

criticism Of the amount Of returns which
the state Of Vermont received from the
manufacturing department. II was not
our purpose To convey the impression
that the returns were not sufficient or
to infer that the business was not man
aged in an up-to-date manner. For
anything we know the state gets as
good an Investment on its money and
labor as a private business man could
get. What we did intend to convey was
the idea that the state Of Vermont as
the owner Of a great manufacturing con
ccrn was not III touch with Its affairs
as private citizen would demand 70
be placed. What business man il there
who, investing considerable amount
Of money in an enterprise, would leave
the management to another and demand
no opportunity for investigating minute
llv and first hand the accounts Of the
business, the receipts and the disburse-
ments, relying rather on the report
which the manager of that industry
should see 1T TO make to him. In
short, what business man would be 50
foolish al 70 invest his money and then
40 Of and leave itf
10 all intcnts and purposes, that y
what the state Of Vermont has done
during the years past. 10 use the exact
words Of the special commissions re-
port. aiNe find that the books and ac-
counts of this department had not been
audited by any state auditor until re-
quired to do 50 by act No. 100 Of the
laws Of 1904, which provides that all
vouchers, bills Of account, etc, be sent
every three months to the office of that
official at Montpelier and audited there.
Turn from this to the specific report
Of the expert accountant, Z. $. Pratt,
who says that the state auditors have
never fonnd it to be part Of their duties
to audit the accounts Of tue department
.and the biennial reports To the legis
lature are the only information the off
GERS Of the department have been rel
quired to furnish once every two
years, then, the officers Of the house Of
correction have been required 10 make
report of their stewardship, and this
is business which il reporting PRO
ceeds Of from $4,000 to $4,000 bienni
ally! Even the expert accountant ad
nits there was a chance for defraudng
the state by not entering sales that
had been made. albeit after comparing
the inventories Of marble bought and
sold, he is inclined to think that such a
thing was not done.
Ii the manner OF conducting the bust
ness was sufficient and satisfactory tand
~ that 81 course we mean conducting
it in relation to the state Of vermont)
if that was sufficient and satisfactory,
why did the state of Vermont at the
last session Of tho legislature pass
1 Jaw irNuHhAS lbt Nttttvi - lh' HtdNt
70 make every quarter year minute
examination Of the management Of the
institution Was there not in the act
Of the legislature confession that the
state had been lax and that as guardian
of the peoples property + had failed
TO make the proper safeguards against
graft If the states methods Of con
Quoting The business have been satisfac-
tory in the past, why is il thar the
special commission in lis report, just
published, recommends that the man.
ager aud bookkeeper Of the marble bust
ness be required as a matter Of busi-
ness prudence and precaution1 to furnish
bonds, As they have not been required
to do beforeg We Leave 1t to The Mes
senger If the state Of Vermont has de-
manded the close touch with the manu-.
featuring department Of the house Of
correction that Mr.. Proctor Or Nm Glenn
ent would demand if they were furnish
/ ing the money instead Of the taxpayers
Of Vermont.