Evening star., 1920-11-21
Treasury Charges
Payments Are
Unsupported.
AUDITING SYSTEM
BRINGS CRITICISM
Controller Tells of De.
lay in Submitting
of Accounts.

Nearly one-half Of the total dis
bursements Of the United States
Shipping Board Emergency Fleet
CORPORATION over = period OF seven
teen months, amounting to more than
two billion dollars. were unsupported
by proper vouchers. according to the
audit Of the corporations accounts
submitted to Secretary Houston today
nv the controller Of the Treasury in his
annual report.
me audit was made by direction OF
Congress for the period Of October.
1913. to February. 1920. and showed
that total disbursements Of the heet
oseporation were $2,732. 2.915,213. OF
which exception to the payment Of 81
1s4 .ss6, ,zls was taken by the controller
because Of the Tack Of supporting
papers." Subsequent production OF
supporting papers. however. the con-
troaler said, resulted in . credit
to the corporation Of $7o.625.SsS,
leaving balance as Of February OF
sl113,7oo,345 disapproved by the
auditors.
Figures Up to February.
The controller presented figures
only up to February. but Martin }.
Gfllen. former special assistant to the
chairman Of the Shipping Board under
Secretary Payne, declared before the
congressional select committee on
Shipping Board operations in New
York last week that up to March l
s2.7oo. .ooo, 900 had been submitted for
the audit and payment Of $1.5oo.ooo-
600 had been disapproved because the
vouchers were not supported by the
aecessary data
Controller warwick declared that
at least Is per cent Of all vouchers
received were pnsNppe son
ments or othxe papers explaining or
tustifying the payment" ut would
appear" he added. "as II the EN-
ersency Fleet Corporation considered
The approval Of the resident or dis
trict auditor as sufficient authority
or justification for q voucher. espe-
cially in reference to fmpreet funds"
Little Improvement Noted.
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 corpora
tion.
Effective October 1. 1918, the con-
troller continued, the corporations
accounts were to be rendered in ac-
cordance with the regulation pro-
mulgated by the Treasury. but ''the
audit of the accounts to February.
1890. would indicate that strict ad-
herence thereto has not been made.
Little Improvement. If any, is noted
in the February. 1929. account over
the previous period"
Despite the feet corporations
original desire to obtain an audit Of
it's accounts by the Treasury. Con-
troller Warwick asserted. "the corpor-
alton appsE ,tly found it well-nigh
hopeless I. bring together the scat
tered supporting papers necessary to
a systematized rendering of it's ac-
counts
Acute stage Threatenel.
AT least" he continued. mo ac-
counts were submitted in response to
the request of the department until
the interchange Of correspondence on
the subject promised to reach an acute
stage"
The audit was originally asked by
Chairman Hurley. Controller Warwick
explained. but was declined because OF
the limitations imposed on the Treas
ury by law. until July 1. 1913. when
Congress directed the Secretary Of the
Treasury to make the audit.
while there was no reason to i'm
pute other motives for the delay than
those always afforded by the difficul-
ties Of bringing order out of condi-
tions not hitherto required to be or
deriy in accordance with given stand
ards" the controller continued. the
situation presented began to look like
q disregard of the law. however ex-
cusable Consequently I viewed it as
4 duty devolving upon my office to
recommend to the Secretary Of the
exact compliance with the law"
Differences Of opinion arose between
the Treasury auditors and the feet
corporation, Controller Warwick said
over the corporations practice Of au-
diting accounts before payment. q
method which was looked upon with
disfavor by the Treasury.
satisfacsiou to Omcers.
Apparently the audit before pay
ment was satisfactory to the officers
charged with the responsibility" he
stated. Under the system employed
il would seem that evidence in sup
port OF disbursements was not re-
quired to accompany vouchers in all
cases and. presumably. such evidence
was left In the hands OF contractors
and other payees. even II submitted in
due form to resident and travelling
auditors. That 1t was so submitted
10 not evidence before the Treasury
and would mean little II shown con
c-Lsitels-.