The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1913-11-06
Refuses to Say What
State Auditor Told
Richards.
REPEATS CHARGES
Reiterates That His Oppon-
ent Told Falsehood About
Expenditures of State

~
Pierre, S., D.--Governor Burne has
given out the following reply to the
open letter of II. o. Richards of
October %, In regard 10 the condi-
ton Of financial affairs in this state,
and as to the authenticity Of the fig
ures shown by Richards in his de-
mand for a reply:
"Mr. n. O. Richards,
Huron, South Dakota.
Dear Sir:
II have your letter of October 20,
In regard to an interview OF mine re-
Gently appearing in the public press
In which / refuted some statements
you had made In a printed sheet re-
Gently circulated. / have read your
letter carefully and with some inter
est. Ny interest, l may say, is chiefly
because Of your peculiar request that
l answer certain questions yes Or
no. as to whether or not the state
auditors office gave o certain in
formation, as though this was in any
way pertinent to the matter.
you Inquire: Did the state audit
or's Office inform me in writing that
the state taxes for 1903 and 1904
were $l.269,SS7?' Permit me to say
that | do not know, o do / care.
whether or not the state auditors
office so wrote you. That Is not the
matter In question. ! am not respon-
sihie for where you get your informa-
ton. I am interested only In the
fact that your statement to which l
was replying was false and mislead-
Ing.
Repeats Figures are Wrong.
while I decline to. commit myself
on whether or not the auditor SO
wrote you, I say unhesitatingly that
your statement Of the amount OF
state taxes for 1903 and 1904 is alb
solutely and unqualifiedly untrue,
as shown by the reports OF the state
auditor. An examination of the audi
tors report for the years 1904 and
1906 show that the amount OF state
taxes levied for the years 1903 and
1904 is $~1,5S9.867. and not $1,269.-
SS7. as you stated. See Auditors Re.
"a ROGtD X0SO 6uVs 1OV7, IOYOIt " 6LdNt
tax Extension for 1903. and page 295,
1903, report for state tax extension
for 1904.
ALSO. let me say that l am not in.
terested in. and decline to commit
myself on the question as to whether
or not the state auditors office, OF
any other, informed you in writing
that the amount appropriated for the
years 1919 and 1914 is $3,637,741
l am Interested only In the fact thai
that is not q correct statement of the
amount by many thousands dollars
'"rhe amount appropriated to b.
expended during the fiscal years
1918 and 1914, to be met by the la,
levy and other state revenues, al
shown by an examination of the yes
sion laws Is $~3.414,2O6. l raised nj
question ms to where you got your in
formation. / simply reported tn,
statement as false. 1t may not be in
tentiOnally false: 1t may be due t.
failure to understand or see clearly
Compared Different Figures
~ said, also, that the implication
of the entire statement was grossl,
misleading and / repeat it here an,
now First, because you take tn
state taxes for one biennial perio,
and compare with the 'appropria
tons for another biennial period ii
that the two refer to the same thing
when in point of fact they are e%ntirel.
different. II one was making an hon
est statement he would either: com
pare the appropriations for one per
Tod with the appropriations for TIN
other; or the state taxes for on
period with the state taxes for tn
other. You do not make such fai
comparison, clearly in the hope tina
your Juggling of figures by usini
state taxes for the former perio,
and appropriations for the latter
would escape notice, and SO in you
view, make a stronger showing be
cause Of this deception.
As to Warrants Unpaid.
II said, also, that your referenc
to the fact that there were $4,000
OF revenue warrants outstanding a
the beginning Of the fiscal year, wa
misleading because you clearly II
tended to give the impression tina
the fact that this amount of revenu
warrants was out was due to the in
sufficiepcy of the tax levy made b
the tax commission for the preser
year. Your reference to this vas !
connection with your statement ths
the levy made by the tax commissio
would not raise sufficient money I
meet the appropriations of the stat
for the fiscal year 1918 by half
million dollars. and the two we're S
coupled together as to show that yo
intended to give the impression tn;
such warrants are To- out becaus
of tho insufficiency Of tho levy. whe
In point of act the tax for which tn
levy was made Will not be payabl
and could not be paid, before tt
first Of next January. and has mott
ing whatever to do with these wa
rants. Your reference to these wa
rams. Your reference to these wa
rants was also misleading for IL
reason that you clearly implied TIL
these warrants were in some way p
131n,lta r. me this vnar aud tn thfc n