The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1907-08-03
MR.. YELLorT MAKES A STATEMENT.
Replying to Prof. Green eReport He Says
It's "a New Way to Pay Old Debts"
Cuttings P. O., Nd, August I'd,

Replying to Prof. Green spReport He Says
It's "a New Way to Pay Old Debts
Cuttings P. o., Nd, August I'd, 1907
Being unable to agree with the conclusions
submitted by Mr.. James e. Green, in his report
to the Board of County Commissioners as the
result of his recent investigation of the county's
fiscal affairs feel that should express briefly
the grounds of my dissent.
This investigation was made, believe, to de-
termine the accuracy of a certain statement at
tributed to me at the time of my resignation
from the Board in April, 1906.
In justice to myself, therefore, it is necessary
for me, in order to correct certain misapprehen-
sions which appear to existas to my position. to
reiterate what then said. Which was-among
other things which it is not necessary now to
recall-that at that time (towit April, 1906 the
county's expenditures had exceeded the esti-
mate by about $4,000, and that there was there
fore an apparent deficit of that amount. I also
then said that in my judgment, a tax rate of
~ cents would be insufficient to run the county
for the IL months ending May 31st, 1907, upon
the scale contemplated by my colleagues. and
indicated in the estimate of expenses. which
may be found on the back of the tax bills for
1906.
I have felt it necessary to state thus fully my
position because Prof. Green, in his report, has
very largely ignored it and has devoted practi-
caly his entire attention to what appears to me
to be gratuitous and fruitless effort to show
that on May 3lst, 1907, the county had balance
to its credit of $58584.93.
While for reasons which 1 will give do not
think he has shown even that, yet if he had it
would certainly not indicate that I was mis-
taken when l said that we were $4,000 in debt
at the close of the fiscal year of 1905, in which
year the tax rate, on smaller basis than we
have since had, was but GA cents. Nor does it
show that was mistaken when said that, reck-
oning upon the only sources of income which
we could then consider that ~ cent tax rate
would not be sufficient when 1t Is considered
that the actual disbursements for that year. in
spite of unusual efforts to keep down the ex-
penditures in the several departments and
especially of the road fund, against which I
must frankly say 1 protested. for I believe in
giving the roads all that is coming to them)
were $714,37l.1S as against estimated disburse-
ments of $685., 500 as printed on the back of the
tax bills for that year-a difference of $26721.18
still adhere to the statement made in April,
1906, that the county was then in debt and as
nothing has since occurred to convince me that
/ was then in error do not care at this time to
add anything to what then said, except to in
dictate briefly my reason for the statement. This
cost but se5i,07s to run the County for the year
ending May 31st, 1905, it actually cost consider
ably over 100000, as will partially appear from
the tax bills of that year and the annual state
While am unwilling to be drawn into con-
troversy upon the accuracy and the merits of
report which has so little apparent connection
with the real issuse, if any there was raised by
my statements, yet there are certain fallacies
running through its kindly but firm corrections
of my Supposed errors to which 1 wish briefly
to advert.
take the position that the actual condition
can only be known by striking balance at the
end of that fiscal year, May 81 crediting 1t with
all that may be due it on account of the taxes
for 1906, and prior years, and any miscellaneous
assests to which it may be entitled, and charg-
ing it With al expenses J incurred prior to that
actual condition be known.
Prof. Green appears to proceed upon the the
DRY that we have, or ought to think we have,
two fiscal years, one for the collection of taxes
beginning on May first; one for the payment of
bills, beginning at some movable date, prefer
ably in the latter part of May or the early part
of June. With due regard for the ingenious
ability and industry of the Professor, this seems
to me to be impracticable.
He says it Is quite reasonable to pay out of the
1907 levy bills for work done in May of that year.
although that month was in the fiscal year of
1905 because the May bills for 1905 were paid out
levy were charged with the bills of May, 1907,
that levy would be called upon to meet the ex-
penses of thirteen months ending at the termi-
as an argument not very Illuminating. If the
levy of 1905 was only sufficient to pay for II
months of that fiscal year, and one month of the
preceding year, then in that levy it must have
been contemplated that at the end of the fiscal
year the county would still owe one months
bills. And if on the other hand it was intended
to pay out of the 1905 levy all the county in
debtedness for all work done during that fiscal
year, and all the county g indebtedness incurred
prior to its termination, which it was supposed
to do. then a matter of course, if the bills for
1905 were unpaid they, as well as the bills for
1906, should be paid from it, and If it was ex-
1907 when the fiscal year did not end until May
31st, again the county at the beginning of the
new fiscal year would owe one months bills left
as legacy from the old year.
So that in either event to determine whether
we were in debt or had surplus on May 3lst,
1906, we must necessarily have considered all
debts for work done at any time during that
BY Prof. Green in his report for work done in
the fiscal year of 1906-as suggested to him by
me-must be deducted from the apparent sur
plus of that year to give even an approximately
fair idea of the county's financial condition.
1t Is q new way to pay old debts to say we have
$4,000 cash in hand and while we owe debts we
will forget them, until some future time, and
call the $4,000 surplus and we will not mar
the appearance of this surplus by charging it
with the bills we owe and which we must pay.
But when MIR. Talbot, at the late Democratic
convention, said that the county had a fifty
thousand dollar surplus at the close of the fiscal
year 1905, when the Treasurer's check book
showed only 81 ,476.05 cash actually in hand on
May 31st, 1907, on account of the levy of 1906 he
must have adopted this theory.
GEORGE W. YELLoTT.