The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1910-11-04

'f"/ o.O II
Figures won't Iie-because they
can't.
Men make them hide the truth. how
ever. On the authority of the Demo
cratic State Committee-despite the
Judgment and decision Of the commit
tee on resolutions of the Democratic
State convention and the convention
itself-fgures have been printed in
the democratic campaign book and in
Democratic newspapers of the state
showing that the expenditures of Gov
ernor Hadley, in conducting the exec
utve office and the mansion for the
first 20 months Of his term, have been
greatly In excess of similar expenses
In CURED by former Governor Folk
during the first twenty months of his
term. b
h opposite 10 true.
The same "gerrymandered" figures
Show that the expenditures of the
present Democratic officials, Attorney
General Major, Secretary of State
Roach, Auditor Gordon and Treasurer
Cowgirl, were less during he first
twenty months of their terms thar
were similar expenditures of their
Republican predecessors during the
corresponding period of their terms.
The reverse 10 true.
The books in the Auditors office
prove it.
S. T. Gresham, who was chief clerk
Under W. w. Wilder in the Auditors
office from 1905 TO 1908, and who
knows how to examine the Auditors
books, has taken from these books
the figures showing what each of the
state offices mentioned cost the state
for the first twenty months following
January l., 1905, and the first twenty
months following January 1, 1909, ex-
elusive of regular salaries. His fig
ures tell the plain, u~nvarnished and
'niisputable facts-and show that the
hgures sent out under the auspices
OF the Democratic State Committee.
doubtless prepared under the hand
OF State Auditor John p. Gordon. were
arranged to tell a partisan story
were prepared to fool the people.
The Banking Department.
The Democratic handbook contains
many absurdites to be accounted for
either as the result Of Ignorance or
OF unfair partisanship-or both. State
Auditor Gordon is generally credited
with the glory Of furnishing the fig
ares. The anthor OF compiler, who
he may be, compares the ex-
p~enditures Of the State Banking De
partment. when operated as a de
partment OF the Secretary OF States
ofnce. with its expenditures as now
operated. Perhaps 1t has not yet oc-
CURED to him that the State Bank
lng Department is now operating un-
isr . new law enacted by a legisla- 4
lure Democratic In both branches. and
nat its expenses are all determined !.
that law and not by the old law
which made 1t q department under ,
he Secretary Of State. II the Bank
ng Department is costing mere now
han when connected with the Secre-
airy OF States office the Democrats
aust take the blame. az they created 4
department The banks of the /,
tate asked for the separation of this /
from the office OF ss.e {
'ecretary OF State. and they asked /
hat It be put on a basis of useful. Z
less to the banking interests. They
'ay fees for the services OF the de-
artment and are perfectly willing to s
all that may be necessary to
laintain IT, The Democrats in the
'enate refused to make proper pro 9
ision for the evenu necessary to b
onduct the department after It fell q
nto the hands OF q Republican. The d
ost OF It Is not borne from the gen t
raj revenue fund, but from the fees O
aid by the bankers Of the state, The i
expenditures made by the present Ssc. d
stary Of State and tho othea - 4