The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-11-21
VOUCHERS MISSING
/ FOR BILLION SPENT
Fleet Corporation Without
Proper Accounts for Half
of Vast Sum.
AUDIT SHOWS CONDITION
Hopeless Confusion Surrounds
Data of Expenditures, Says
.. S. Comptroller.
AUDIT SHOWS CONDITION

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20.-Nearly one
half Of the total disbursements of the
United States Shipping Board Emer-
gency Fleet Corporation over period
or seventeen months. amounting to more
than $2.000.000,000. were unsupported
by proper vouchers. according to the
audit of the corporations accounts sub
mitted to-day to Secretary Houston by
the Comptroller OF the Treasury in his
annual report
The audit was made by direction of
Congress for the period October. 1918,
to February, 1920, and showed that total
disbursements Of the Fleet Corporation
were S2.732. 915.213, of which exception
to the payment Of S1,1S4, S26,243 was
taken by the Comptroller because OF the
lack Of supporting papers," Suisse
quent production Of supporting papers,
however. the Comptroller said. resulted
in q credit to the corporation of $780,
625.S9S, leaving a balance as of Febru-
AIRY of $1.113.7OO.S45 disapproved by the
auditors
The Comptroller presented figures
only up to February. but Martin ].
-Gillen. former special assistant to the
chairman of the Shipping Board under
Secretary Payne, declared before the
Congressional select committee on Ship
ping Board operations in New York last
week that up to March l $1,000. 100000
had been submitted for the audit and
payment Of Sl,500 000, 900 had been dis
approved b9c1uge
supported by the necessary data.
rs Per Cent. Unsupported.
Comptroller Warwick said that Eat
least 20 per cent. of all vouchers re-
ceived were unsupported by documents
or other papers explaining or justifying
the payment"
ut would appear" he added, "as If
the Emergency Fleet Corporation con-
sidered the approval of the resident or
district auditor as sufficient authority or
justification for voucher, especially in
reference to fmprest funds"
Imprest funds are explained as funds
established by the corporation and set
up in banks adjacent to the plants of
the ship contractors, and expenditures
were made from them under general
orders of the corporation.
Effective October /, 1918, the Comp
troller continued, the corporations ac-
counts were to be rendered in accord
ance with the regulations promulgated
by the Treasury but 1.-The audit of the
accounts to February, 1920, would indi-
cate that strict adherence thereto has not
been made. Little Improvement, If any,
is noted in the February, 1920, account
over the previous period"
Confusion in Data.
Dasni+a tba daet cornora tion,a orig;ra1
desire to obtain an audit Of its accounts
by the Treasury, Comptroller Warwick
asserted THE corporation apparently
found 1t well nigh hopeless to bring to-
getEer the scattered supporting papers
necessary to systematized rendering of
its accounts"
AT least" he continued, mo accounts
were submitted IN response to the re-
quest of the department until the inter-
change of correspondence on the subject
promised to reach an acute stage"
The audit was originally asked by
Chairman Hurley, Comptroller Warwick
explained but was declined because OF
the limitations imposed on the Treasury
by law until July 1. 1918. when Congress
directed the Secretary of the Treasury
10 make the audit
while there was no reason to impute
other motives for the delay than those
always afforded by the difficulties of
bringing order out of conditions not
hitherto required to be orderly in ac-
cordance with given standards" the
Comptroller continued, "the situation
began to look like a disregard of the
law. however excusable. Consequently
viewed it as a duty of my office to
recommend to the Secretary of the
Treasury that some action be taken to \
exact compliance with the law"
Differences of Opinion.
Differences Of opinion arose between
the Treasury auditors and the Fleet
Corporation. Comptroller Warwick said.
over the corporations practice of audit
ing accounts before payment. a method
which was looked upon with disfavor by
the Treasury.
Apparently the audit before payment
was satisfactory TO the officers charged
with the responsibility" he stated
'nder the system employed IL would
seem That evidence in support OF dis
bursements was not required tc accom-
pany vouchers in all cases and pre-
glmably such evidence was left in the
hands of contractors and other payees,
even IL submitted in due form to resident
and travelling auditors. That II was so
submitted is not evidence before the
Treasury and would mean little II shown
conclusve
"A prior knowledge on the part Of
corporation officers, unsupported by
papers of record. would not establish a
reason why an audit by the Treasury
after payment should follow blindly
an audit by corporation officers before
payment BY its action In requiring a
Treasury audit II would seem that the
Congress sought TO have the facts, so far
as possible. presented to the Treasury
Department and the completed record of
operations placed In the files OF the de-