The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-11-21
SPENT BY
 CORPORATION B WITH ! Z; ROPER VOUCHERS
Audit of Shipping Board Ac- counts Reveals 25 Per Cent of All Vouchers Were Un-
 supported By Data
By Assesiated Press


 Washington. November 20.--
 bursements of the United States
 Shipping Beard Emergency cor
 poration over . period of IT mOntks-
 amounting to more than $2,00O.-
 e00,Ooo, were unsupported by prop
 CT vouchers, according to the audit
 of the corporation's accounts sub
 mitted to Secretary Houston today
 by the Comptroller of the Treas
 nry in his annual report.
 The audit was made by direction of Congress for the period from October, 1918, to February, 1920, and showed that total dsbursementis of the fleet corporation were $2,732s15,213, of which exception to the payment of troller because of the Tack of sup porting papers," Subsequent produc- tion of supporting papers, however. the comptroller said, resulted in a credit to the corporation of 70,es5,sss, leav- ing a balance as of February of s1, 11s,- 70O,s45 disapproved by the auditors.
 The comptroller presented figures only up to February, but Martin J. Gil- len. former special assistant to the chairman of the shipping board. de- clared berore the congressional com mittee on shipping board operations in New York last week that up to March l. $2,700,000 had been submitted for the audit and payment of 1,500, 900, 900 had been disapproved because the vouchers were not supported by the necessary data.
 25 PER CENT UNSUPPORTED
 Comptroller Warwick declared that at least 25 per cent of all vouchers re- ceived were unsupported by documents or other papers explaining the pay ment"
 Tt would appear" he added, .as if the Emergency Fleet corporation con sidered the approval of the resident or district inspector as sufficient author ity for a voucher, especially imprest funds"
 Imprest funds are explained as funds distributed by the corporations banks adjacent to the contractors.
 Effective October 1, 1918, the comp troller continued, the corporations ac- counts were to be rendered in accord ance with the regulation promulgated by the treasurer.
 Despite the fleet corporation's origi- nal desire to obtain an audit of it's ac- counts by the treasury. Comptroller Warwick asserted the corporation ap- parently found 1t well nigh hopeless to bring together the scattered supporting papers necessary to q systematic rens dering of it's accounts"
 At least" he continued, mo accounts were submitted in response to the request of the department until the in terchange of correspondence on the subject promised to reach an acute stage"
 The audit was originally asked by Chairman Hurley. Comptroller War wick explained, but was declined be. cause of the limitations imposed in the treasury by law. until July 1, 1918, when Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make the audit.
 DISREGARD FOR LAW
 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" the comptroller continued, 'the situation presented began to look like disre- gard of the law, however, excusable
 Consequently viewed 1t as a duty involving upon my office to recommen that some action be taken to exact compliance with the law"
 Difference of opinion arose be- tween the treasury auditors and the fleet corporation, Mir. Warwick said over the corporations practice O, auditing accounts before payment, method which was looked upon with disfavor by the treasury.
 Apparently the audit before pay ment was satisfactory to the officers charged with the responsibility" he asserted.
 Under the system employed 1t woul. seem that evidence in support of dis. bursements Was not required to &C., company vouchers in all cases and presumably, such evidence was left in the hands of contractors anS othe, payees, even If submitted in due form to resident and travelling auditors. Tha. 1t was so submitted Is not evidence be. fore the eyes of the treasury and would mean little if shown conclusively.
 "A prior knowledge on the part of the corporation, supported by papers of record, would not establish reason why an audit by the treasury after payment should show blindly an audit by corporation officer before payment