The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1921-03-31

demand the return of this over,
payment if the city has the
amount coming, snd we guess
no one disputes it.
Why did the city go to the ex
pense of having the Water com
pany books audited? The
Railway Commission will dc
that anyway-that commission
will pay no attention to "Pal'
Raglan's' audit. The only rea
son conceivable is that my last
friend" ought to have a joI
worth while to pay him to come
from Minneapolis. So in CRATE
fulness OF heart about $17OO oil
the city treasury was turned
over, to audit the city books
the water company and the
school board, when authority
was given to install a system oil
bookkeeping nthe city clerk
Office, and then on Jan. 21st
after Raglan had started the jot
the Council passed motion to
employ Raglan and Pierce as &C
cOuntants.
These Minneapolis auditors
did not fail to find where Mr..
Hutton spent $2.55 for meals on
his trip to Madison and return
when hiring teachers, which
was mighty small in compari-
son with the price charged by
the auditors for meals at Wash
burn and Spooner on their trip
from Minneapolis. Meals on
the Omaha came high, amount
ing to 5000, on their bill filed
Dec. IA, 1920. You can get
this information from their bill
in the clerks office. You don't
have to take the word of the
News or the Times for this.
The price of meals dropped
with other prices two months
later for on March LIST, Raglan
and Pearce only charged $26. 20
for meals and room on one bill
dated March LIST, and the SAME
CHARGE on the other bill date
March 1st, while the prices must
have advanced again eight days
later for a bill filed March 9Th
$64.34 was placed as the amount
for meals and room, in addition
to pullman fare and porter, and
$31,2 for a ten hour day for
pal" Raglan and $500 for the
same period for his helper.
These auditors criticized the
school board for approving bills
for teachers salaries after the
had been paid to the
teachers, yet THEY FAILED
TO NOTICE where the Mayor
had pulled down his salary for
the entire year five months after
ne had been elected. (See Page
447 city records.
They found where the Water
company had been overpaid
error, where the light
company had been overpaid a
small amount through error,
where others had been overpaid
small amounts, all of which APP
peared in THEIR AUDIT, vet
# you investigated that report
from cover to cover you could not
ind where the Peavey Publish
ng Company had been overpaid,
vet there is a refund check in
he Clerks Office for an amount
which was returned on the adj
nee of s'my last Friend"
They managed to make it |
appear that Hutton had expend-
I'd a large amount for "other|
expenses" in his office, but they
lid not say that this included |
TENS as follows: April 2, Pea
yey Pub. Co., $40, same May |
g, $500, same June 20, 1915
md to Frank Gray June 4, 1919 |
$4,000 and other items, yet in |
rider to make the report look
'ad for Hutton against whom
Peavey has a grudge) they in
Jude these items Of printing |
nd services, in "other expense"
md the Mayor asks "Why SO
many miscellaneous expenses
Without a name" Why, gentle
nen, why ?" Mr.. and Mrs.
Ioter go over the records of
he school board and look this
lp for yourself.
Take Exhibit &c" and then &c
yer the same books that the
uditors went over and find if
on can a budget estimate where
calls for $2,O5O.OO for Supt.
)ffice salaries. Take Exhibit
=, again and see if you can