Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-12-19
PUBLIC METHODS.

Information reaches The Journal that for the
third time in two years, Jonathan H. Wagner is
refusing to read this paper. In view of the fact
that some six hundred subscribers are read
ing 1t than before, leads to hope that we
may be able to keep publishing In spite of Mr..
Wagners temporary disaffecton.
We assume that his immediate grievance Is our
audit of the educational department during his term
of office He probably feels It to be q personal
affront that taxpayer should dare call in question
his official acts We decline to be impressed. He
public servant and the public has RICH.
to know precisely the degree of fidelity with which
he conducted his office.
The Journals instructions to the auditors were
to learn the exact facts When have the re-
suits will give them to the public. If these
facts help Mr.. Wagner, will be glad with him.
If they hurt him, we will be sorry for him. The
whole thing is devoid of malice and is done in the
hope of rendering the public service, If there
criticisms Of his methods 1t may assist him
in avoiding a repetition of his mistakes.
The Journal does not know yet what the audit
will show in final results. We have assumed of
course. that Mr.. Wagner embezzled money We
do know that the auditors have been compelled
to construct system of books from vouchers AMI
warrants There no system worthy of the
name We do know that the laxness of the methods
left honesty entirely to Mr.. Wagners personal in
tegrity.
The Journals object in discussing the matter
at all before the audit Is completed is because
couple of examples will illustrate the looseness
with which the peoples business is handled Such
illustrations will apply equally to half Of the offices
in the state house That is justification
Here is example: A voucher was made to
Mr.. Wagner by Mr.. Wagner for $3.50 as reimburse
ment for two rugs paid for by him. No receipted
bill accompanied the voucher A warrant on this
voucher made to Mr.. Wagner by the auditor
and he paid that amount. After the criticisms
of Mr.. Whittier were published. Mr.. Wagner sup
piled the missing receipt from the furniture peo-
pie 1t specifies two rugs sold to Mr.. Wagner. No
one can tell which rugs are referred to and the
whole matter is one of Mr.. Wagner's honesty.
These rugs should have been billed to the state
and payment made to the seller, direct. The meth
cd used would have made 1t possible for the dealer
to lay these the floor of Mr. Wagner's
home without being in the secret OF a fraud.
Here is another instance: A voucher for 81 7S5
made to the A. and M. college for vocational
reimbursement. The warrant issued thereon was
receipted for "a. and NJ. College by Ruth C. Mil
ler." The warrant endorsed "a and NJ College
by c. N. Frenger, Treasurer" No one connected
with the audit knows the signature of Mr. Frenger.
The warrant was not deposited In Las Cruces but
paid by the First National Bank of Santa Fe
who received check therefor from the treasurer.
payable to the bank. Only protracted correspon-
dence makes 1t possible for the auditor to certify
that the item is correct and that Mr. Frenger or
the school received the money. We assume that
they did.
The point is that such system makes audit
almost impossbility. The task is prodigious
Yet they tell that immediate change In
accounting system is not imperative.