The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1907-08-31
Correspondence Baltimore County Union.
PROF. GREEN'S FINANCIAL REPORT.


baltimore COUNTY, August 26th, 1907.
Messrs. Editors Perhaps a temperate review
of the last report of Professor Green on the
county finances may not be without interest. |
The undersigned respectfully suggests that as
source of information to the taxpayers of the
county the report is very disappointing, as 1t
contains little or nothing that might not be
readily ascertained from the annual report OF
the County Commissioners. And here Il may
not be improper to note that the copy OF the
law, placed at the head of the latter report as
published by the Commissioners, is not the law
applicable to Baltimore county. except rs ma
terially amended by Chapter 1913 of tho Acts
of 1900.
That chapter passed at the request of the
Taxpayers Convention,) requires the annual re-
port to contain a statement of the assets and
liabilities of the county at the end of the fiscal
year, May 31st. Before the amendment of the
law, as stated, it was the practice OF the Com
missioners to show large cash balance OF bor-
rowed money, while there were outstanding
many thousands of county obligations in the
shape of notes to banks and accepted bills, or
'acceptances," as these last were called. The
taxpayers amendment of course stopped this
practice and the statement of assets and liabili-
ties should give clear showing of the county
finances.
AS taxpayers we, of course, did not presume
the report published by the Commissioners was
misstated, and yet the most important question
arose: "Were there many bills due and owing
May 31st, 1907, and not mentioned in the annual
report as bills on fle9 Mr.Yellott charged there
were such bills. Mr.. Green's report admits and
denies these facts.
AS to the first claim of Mr.. Yellott that the
o1.0 k.fa
accounted a liability of the county is no doubt
incorrect, as Professor Green points out that
the Commissioners have paid the School Board
the full amount appropriated in the 1906 levy,
and the law forbids the Commissioners to exceed
their appropriation made in the levy. (Another
of the laws passed at request of the taxpayers.)
The best legal opinion the writer can obtain
holds this $24 800 In notes is not even debt due
by the School Board, as that Board has no au-
thority to borrow money and acted illegally in
doing so. Further, that bill in equity by any
taxpayer would lie to restrain the Board from
paying these notes out of the school funds and
place the liability on the individual members
who signed these notes.
So far Professor Green is correct. However,
he enters into an ingenious argument to show
that the May bills for 1907 should be paid out of
the 1907 levy as the May bills for 1905 were paid
in June, 1906, out of the 1906 levy. That other
wise there would be IL monthly payments out
of the 1906 levy if paid up for liabilities in
CURED in May, 1907, on May 3lst. This argument
is exactly true SO far, and only so far as showing
that the levy of 1905 was sufficient for the cur
rent expenses of the fiscal year ending May 3lst,
1907. The levy appears sufficient for current an
nual expenses of that year by the Commission
ers' report as well as by that of Professor Green.
There is a favorable balance shown, if all obli-
cations due May 31st are fully reported. That
favorable balance is obtained in part, however,
(as shown by the Commissioners report) by sub
tracing $13,662 from the special fund of several
districts and adding this sum to the general road
fund, which had been by SO much overdrawn-a
welcome economy, but quite illegal on either
count.
However, the Professor goes further in his
argument and states as the practice has always
been to pay the May bills in June out of the levy
of the succeeding year, therefore these May bills
are not liabilities on May 3lst, though due and
owing by the county on that date.
This argument is hardly comprehensive and
can hardly be taken seriously. The law mot
fully published at the head of the Commission
ers' report) compels an annual statement of as
sets and liabilities of the county on May 3lst 1907
Does Professor Green mean to say that the
salaries due for May to the numerous officers
and employees of the county were not liabilities
and owing at the end of the month-May 3Ist?
The monthly expenses of the almshouse, Jail.
lighting, roads, etc., are equally liability on
Nav 31st and easily ascertainable, even If in the
course of business many of these bills are paid
in June. The time of payment has nothing to
do with the fact of the liability required by law
to be published. The same argument, If the
county had any notes outstanding payable in
June would deny these notes as liabilities be-
cause not yet due on May 3lst. 1t is fair pre-
sumption it was on this unusual theory OF la
bilities that note of the Commissioners tor
$4,000, which was outstanding May 3lst, 1906,
was omitted from the assets and liabilities in
tho annual Commissioners' report published in
1906.
These May liabilities existed plainly, as claim
ed by Mr.. Yellott, on May 3lst. The county ex-
penses roughly average $4,000 per month, and
probably if these liabilities were deducted from
the net assets there would be PROBABLY an ex-
cess of assets over liabilities, but not the $5S,5S4
claimed by Professor Green. The actual dis
bursements in June, 1907, were $S3 .90, which
is suggestive.
It is difficult to ascertain the exact limits of
Professor Green's instructions, but as he reports
he sees no evidence of any county debt and
states the assets and liabilities of the county as
he views them, these statements are open to fair
criticism.
The taxpayers are not interested in any con-
troversy except as to the facts Of the county
finances. The real point in issue between Mr..
Yellott and the other members of the Board is,
what liabilities existed on May 31st not included
in "bills on file?" That is the sole question.
Professor Green states he does not include in
liabilities any work originating in May" He
does not state If he found any bills paid in June
for work mot originating in May" but pre-
viously. Presumably there were some such
bills and the writer is reliably informed some
road bills, at least, presented in June for work
done previous to May, were considerable in
amount.
The bills for salaries, lighting and other bills
for May work are easily ascertainable, as the
law only requires the Commissioners report to
be published within sixty days of the close of
the fiscal year.
Until these bills are known Mr.. Yellott's con-
tention is not disproved and the taxpayers know
no more of the actual condition of the finances
on May 3lst than may be found in the Commits
sioners' report already published.
In closing it is only to be noted that the ap-
parent "credit balance of cash on hand-$19,-
222. S0-is to be diminished by the reported "bills
on fle," which are S10496.17, leaving net bal
ance on May 31st of $S,726. This calculation as
sumes all bills thatare usually presented in May
are included in the "bills on fle,' which is only
an assumption. Very respectfully,
E. L. PAINTER.