The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-10-01
Comptroller of the Treasury
Declines to Authorize Pay
ment by @. P. 0.
PUBLIC PRINTER
RAPS AT THE FIRM
Says He Does Not Know Whether
Expert Service" Was Rem
dered or Not.

The audit system. which was ousted
from the Government Printing Office
on February Is, last has just received
a solar plexus blow by way OF a deci-
sion of the Comptroller Of the Treasury.
r. j. Tracewell, which disallows the
claim of the Audit System for S7.7O0,
the amount claimed by the system for
expert service to continue the installa-
ton OF the cost, audit and inventory
system in the Government Printing Of
hce."
The Comptroller's decision is the re,
suit Of a letter from Public Printer
Leech, who said that r. Golden Donald
son. attorney for the audit system and
the Audit System Supply Company. had
made a formal demand on him for pay
ment OF certain items claimed to be due
the audit system FOR services rendered
the Government, amounting TO $500 on
account of a certain agreement. under
the date Of July l, 1907, by and between
the audit system OF New York and the
United States. by Charles A. Stillings,
Public Printer.
THE demand also included a claim
for certain bills for supplies furnished
the Government by the Audit Sup
plies Company. the supplies being
made necessary, the Public Printer
said, by the presence OF the Audit
System in the Government Printing
ONCE. Both concerns, the Public
Printer wrote, were allied.
Raps Audit System.
After quoting from the contract be-
tween the Audit System and the
United States, by former Public
Printer Stillings. which provided that
the Audit System shall furnish the
necessary expert service" Public
Printer Leech continues and let's loose
a broadside against the audit system
saying that the history Of the system
and the practice Of those in charge of
the installation of the system in the
Printing Once disclose that numerous
changes were made in the method OF
application Of the system to the needs
Of the office The Public Printer then
adds: And this, too. after the audit
system had been given a free hand 10
make such preliminary investigation as
might have been necessary to acQuaint
them with what was required. II any
thing, in the way Of an accounting SyS-
tenn, all Of which argues against the
theory Of expert service. Subsequent
developments have shown that many.
If not all Of the methods Of the audit
system which were practiced In the
testify experimental, purely theoretical,
and utterly unsuited to the needs Of the
office and Il cannot be successfully con-
tended that the Government derived any
benefit from the expenditure for the
audit system It Is not a reasonable
presumption that when the phrase 'ex-
pert service was used in the agree
ment that anything was contemplate
except that the said expert service
should be used for the benefit OF the
party Of the second part-the Govern
ment-who was paying for the same
at an eXOrbitant rate That the Gov
eminent did not receive expert service
in return for the money expended there
fore Is hardly to be questioned in the
light of all the circumstances which
surround the case"
Refers to Report.
Public Printer Leecn refers to the
Congressional report, which is the rec
ord Of the proceedings Of the Printing
Investigation Commission. and IN that
report, the commission, he says, gave
II as its opinion that the services claim
ed for were not expert services, and the
payment therefore should not be APP
proved
The Audit System under its contract
of July l, 1907. was to receive $3.50 a
week for putting in the system, and did
year. The claim which has just been
disallOwed is for the weeks ending Janu-
airy IS, and %, February l and s, and
five days, February s TO Is. inclusive
The Public Printer informed the Comp
troller that no formal voucher had been
presented and approved, such a condf-
tion being impossible. since he could
not certify affirmatively to the charac-
ter Of the service performed. nor the
justice and reaSOnableness Of the price
of the supplies sought TO be recovered
for.
In his decision. which is quite long.
the Comptroller says il needs no g.gu-
ment TO show that disbursing officer
is not authorized to pay a demand
against the Government until a voucher
made Jp in the prescribed form, OF. its
fair equivalent, is presented to him. 9th
erwise accounting officers would have
no sufficient data upon which to prop
erly audit accounts.