The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1921-11-04

accountant tnat was employed by
Prosecutor Able to make an exam
nation of the books, vouchers, etc.
for 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 and
present any Irregularities that he
found, together wi tn resolution,
vouchers, ETC., to the April Grand
Jury, which he did. After a full and
thorough inspection and investigation
by that Body it was found there was
no such Irregularities as would war
rant the Grand Inquest in finding in
dictments against any member of the
Board of Chosen Freeholders, as none
were returned.
When the audit for the year 1919
and 1920 were completed and filed
with the Commissioner of Public Ac-
counts" and approved by him, there
was prepared by the then County Col
lector for publication the annual fl
nancial statement; the accountant
was advised by the Board of Chosen
Freeholders of its intention to pub
lish, the usual financial statement
when he informed them that the law
of 1918 required the auditors re-
port to be published only, and there
was no law giving the Board of
Chosen Freeholders the authority to
publish any other statement, as will
be found in the P. L. 1918; and he
informed the Freeholders that if the
statement was published in the old
way he would report such expendi-
ture as an illegal expenditure, and
upon the advice of the State Auditor
it was, upon motion made and second
ed, that so far as the publication of
the financial statement of the Coun-
ty was concerned, it should be done
strictly in conformity with the law,
which requires the publication of the
summary of the auditors report. The
motion was passed by the unanimous
vote of the Board of Chosen Free
holders, to wit, John J. Horn, Harry
Philower, William B. Wean. 1t there
was any suppression of publication
of the financial statement, as has
been charged and SO much talked "a
bout, it was done both by the Demo-
crat and Republican members of the
Board alike. Had the Board of Chos-
en- Freeholders pursued any other
course than that prescribed by the
law and advised by the Auditor it
would have been an illegal expendi-
ture.
At the close of the fiscal year 1920
it is true that there was a deficit of
some $4,000. which was caused by
over expenditures in various depart
ments of the appropriation, which
sum is very easily accounted for.
First, after the adoption of the
budget for the fiscal year in 1920
certain conditions arose over which
the Board of Chosen Freeholders had
no control and they are very easily
enumerated.
First, the Legislature increased the
salaries of the Boards Of Chosen
Freeholders to the sum of $4,000. 1t
increased the expenses of the election
and election officers and various fees
accompanying such work to the ex-
tent of some $4,000.
The winter was a bad one, and af-
ter the budget was made for 1920, it
was necessary for the Board of Chos-
en- Freeholders to expend some $751;
900. in clearing the roads Of snow to
make them passable The freight
strike was on and it became neces-
sary for the New York and Pcnnsyl-
vania traffic to pass over the roads
in the Spring of the year, which made
them impossible. In passing over our
roads these trucks broke down bridg-
eS, which it was necessary for the
Freeholders TO reconstruct and re-
pair. The Board of Freeholders well
knew the amount of money that was
being expended in bridge repair and
construction, and road repair, they
being the only expenditures over
which they had control, the other
being done by legislative acts.
Inc question was with some two
payers in public roads: Would it be
cheaper to repair these roads at once
and try to preserve the investment
rather than let them 70 over another
winter without the required nc eded
repair, which would tail more than
three times as mu,h in expeGd ure
to repair, if deferred until after the
budget made in January 1921 than
if would to have L done during the
wear 1920? Could The Board of { hos