Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-05-17
Commissioner Smith Exonerated
of Blame for Irregularities
by Secretary of State.
CHARGES GROUNDLESS,
HE WRITES GOVERNOR
Result of Erroneous Assumption
or Misstatement of Facts,
He Declares.
Especial to the Newark star.1


thirty -eight pages replying to the
charges of State Auditor William e.
Drake dealing with the alleged mis-
management of the department of
motor vehicles, of which Assistant Sec
retary of State J. B. r. Smith is the
head.
On the whole, the defense Of the sec
retary of state is that the charges Of
Drake are without foundation. The
statement is addressed to Governor
Fort. Among other things, 1t finds
fault with the Governor for the adop-
tion by him of the course he pursued in
moving against the motor vehicle de-
partment.
Colonel Dickinson seeks to explain in
great detail the charges against the
motor vehicle department. He defines
all of the duties of the various officers
of the department, tells of the methods
of keeping records and justifies them
ali by the frequent statements that
they are all right.
In letter to the Governor, the Sec
retary of state says in part
Dickinson's Letter.
"Hon. John Franklin Fort, Governor
of New Jersey:
"Dear Sir-On April 19 ult., received
from you a communication enclosing a
report of the auditors examination of
the motor vehicle department, together
With your request for my consideration
and action. On that date l replied that
should Immediately make thorough
Investigation and report the result of
my findings to you. / accordingly
asked Mr.. Smith to prepare whatever
answer he. desired to make regarding
the charges in the auditors report, and
on April %, received from him his
statement thereon, and then proceeded
to thoroughly Investigate not only the
report of the auditor, and Mr.. Smiths
statement regarding it, but every phase
of the work of the motor vehicle de-
partment, and present in the schedule
annexed hereto the result in detail.
"On account of the care with which
it seemed desirable to do this work,
it was found necessary TO consume
more time and space than originally
intended, and j shall in this report,
only summarize briefly the result OF the
findings which are set forth in full in
the schedule above referred to-
1.-THE auditor, at the outset, acQuits
the department of dishonesty, but Wig
orously assails it's efficiency and busi-
ness accuracy. In one instance tird
the auditors criticism well-founded-
that was the case of the department.
omission to file monthly itemized state
ments of the agencies expenses. This
defect has already been remedied.
"All the other charges / find to be
entirely groundless. In every instance
they are based on a statement of per-
sonal opinion, are the result of reason
ings from false premise, Of erroneous
assumptions, or are misstatementS of
fact.
Scores the Auditor
II find that the auditor did not make
n complete audit; that he did not sys-
tematically examine the original
records of the department. which con-
sist of the returns made by the agents,
but sought to find the information con-
tanned therein, and which was among
the first things placed at his disposal,
at the offices of the agents, a place
where they were not kept, and where
they could be of no possible use to the
department In fact, he did not make
an audit, but an investigation of meth
o6s. The function of the agents is to
issue licenses and account for the
money. The department Office is the
record keeping office, and / find that
the records are all there and systemat-
ically arranged in a singularly simple
and comprehensive manner.
Personal opinion is of value only
as the one giving 1t is competent to
Judge. In this case, the opinion of the
auditor and his assistant formed after
an acquaintance with the work of less
than four months during which time
they failed to even understand the way
original records were kept, is opposed
not only by the actual results obtained,
but by the opinion of q great army of
motorists of police officials, and of rep
resentative men of affairs who are
constantly having dealings with the
department, and | have not heard that
it is supported by any one.
1.-THE auditors reasonings from false
premises, his erroneous assumptions
and his misstatementS of fact may
possibly also in a large measure, at
least, be traced to his failure to make
systematic use of the original records
to make an audit rather than an ex-
parte investigation. 1t is significant
also to note that though the auditor
has many pages of condemnation he
has not one word of suggestion for i'm
provement, though the law creating
his department makes that a part Of
his duties when Improvement is pos
sible. The result is that there is no
ground whatever for the charges and
no reason for condemning the manage
ment.
II find, on the other hand, that there
is not only no basis for the charges.
and no grounds for condemnation. hut
that there is very great reason for
praise. commentator and appreciation
of faithful services. I desire further to
call your attention to the fact that the
auditor presented lengthy report of
tCentinued On Second Pase.)