The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1906-05-04
VAIN ROASTING.

County treasurer Patton says that We
were wrong IN our statement last week
as to the amount OF reduction of the out.
standing interest hearing warrants dur
ing the first year of Republican control
of the COuutv'S finances. Instead OF It's
being about SIS, 600 as we stated, 1t was
exactly SIISS4.6i, lie SAYS that Mi
Henslcv turned over TO him on January
/, 1905, his checks for S27, 572.SS. He al.
SO turned over a list Of iutercSt-bca
warrants outstanding and unpaid amout.
ing to SIgIST.oS and OF noulntcrest.
bearing warrants outstanding and un-
paid amounting to S6.oS7. rs, making a
total Indebtedness u s2SIgS.23. One
wear later, January l. 1890, the amount
OF cash on hand had been increased to
{32,722.45, gain for the year Of S.
oAg.Sg The intcrcst-bcaring warrants
outstanding and unpaid had been re
duCed' to fgS,4GSg, a reduction OF So.
3Ib.S6, and the MISUNDERSTANDING
warrants outstanding and unraid to 81.
SIg.US, u reduction Of S2,2IS.2S. The
total net gain of cash increase and debt
reduction was sIS,IS4.gN,-Farlnington
News.
That is rather a confusing
tumble of figures, and like the tel.
low who said the horse was
eighteen feet high, the News tries
10 bolster up its statement; but let
rs see what there is in it, Treas
urer Patton says that on January
lst, 1908. former Treasurer Hens.
ley turned over to him in cash or
checks ST, G72 IS. also evidences
of Indebtedness amounting to so, .
l9J. %. II it be true that Treas
u:cr HeusIey turned over the
amount of county revenues stated,
II wa, enough to pay off all out.
standing warrants and leave a cash
balance of - ,477.S3 in the treas
ury.
Now, just two months later the
certified official financial statement
Of the county, approved by the
Republican County "ourt, shows Il
net Indebtedness OF SIC, l4N,I.
Did our Republican County Count
increase the Indebtedness OF the
county that much in the first two
months of its administration!
Again, Treasurer Patton says
that on January |, 1906, there was
So. ID a cash in the treasury, or
gain of $J,O49, -, and Il total
reduction of $l2 j34 GO of indebt-
edness. If that he true then the
gross Indebtedness of the county
should be only Sl2 ,OJ9. 81. Yet
the net Indebtedness of the county
at the close of the fiscal year,
March 3, 1906 as will be shown
by the financial statement, is 3d.
772.S3, about the same that it was
a year ago.
The trouble with the amateur
book keeper of the County Treas
ury is, that he jumbles together all
the funds OF the county, including
the capital school funds, which
play no part in the county revenue;
he uses the calendar year, instead
of the fiscal year, and includes the
collections of December, 1904, and
the collections of December, 1905
the month in which the larg-
est collection OF taxes Is made
in his statement. His figures
don't show or prove anything; they
are mere tumble.
Facts are stubborn things to
get around, and the fact Is that
at the annual settlement,
March s, 1905, the net indebt-
edness of the county was $l6,-
1881. On March 8, 1905,
the net Indebtedness was $751;
772.S 80, as the official financial
statement will show a reduc-
ton OF only $375.ss.
Now. we will do our Republican
County Court, which has had the
management of the county's finan'
ces for the past year and quarter,
the Justice to say that it is not to
blame that there has not been any
appreciate reduction in the coun-
tvs Indebtedness, for the annual
revenues of the county are not suf-
icient to pay its running expenses
and the necessary cost of steel
bridges over our streams, rock'road