Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-09-15

committee concluded it was unneces-
sary to increase the tax rate by rea-
son of 1t. They told me the matter
was dropped then and there. ,s
I The Auditor's Signed Statement
On July 18th again visited the
Auditor and again inquired about the
special appropriation and tax rate.
Messrs. Hayford and Berry confirmed
their previous statements. l then
asked Mr.. Hayford If he would sign
a statement to that effect and with
out hesitation he did so, signing 1t
in my presence and retaining
copy for his files; it is as follows:
AFTER consultation with the Leg
is,ative Committee it was deemed
unnecessary to include in the figures
that went to make up the State tax
rate. 1925 to 1926, the amount of the
special appropriation made under
Resolve Chapter 80, Laws OF 1925.
and under Chapter SO, Private and
Special Laws Of 1925, the reason
being that we found SUFFICIENT funds
in the State treasury to care Tor that
amount, and consequently 1t did not
become necessary to increase the
State tax rate"
When the State Auditor signs a
statement like the foregoing to the
effect that after consultation with
the Legislative C.mmlttee IT was
deemed unnecessary" to add the
special appropriation In the tax rate,
and that we Che and the Legislative
Committee) found sufficient funds In
the State treasury to care for that
amount I felt that I had the right
to rely upon it. If the Auditors
signed statements are worth any
thing. that one should be worth
1000. ..., !.
An Attempted "Alibi"
The sequence of events is inter-
esting. MY reply of August 18th
was given to all the newspapers sew
eral days in advance, and left Port
land for st. Adams on Tuesday, Au-
gust 18th at 9 a. m. and Delivered
my address there on Wednesday,
August 18th at IL a. m. In 1t l re-
ferred to the Auditors written state
ment above quoted. On my return to
my office in Portland, Thursday. Au-
gust 18th, was surprised to find on
nv desk a letter from the Auditor
in which he retracted what he and
Mr.. Berry had said, and what he
himself had signed. The language OF
his letter in part is as follows:
Il have recently learned that the
deficiency resolve was figured into
| the tax rate by the Committee on
Appropriations and Financial Affairs.
| In checking up the information 1
gave you l inquired about this both
from Senator Wadsworth and from
Governor Brewster and find that part
of my letter is in error"
The Auditors retraction disclosed
an extraordinary situation. AS soon
| as read it and studied the postmark
on the envelope, / realized what hac
| transpired and saw evidence OF Gov
| ernor Brewsters hand. Governor
| Brewster, probably having been ad-
vised of what was to say, APP
| parently sought to lay the founda-
| ton for an .alibi' SO he could hide
behind the State Auditor. He SEEM
| ed willing to throw the latter official
| into the breach to bear the brunt OF
the attack. The Auditors retracting
! letter dated August 18th Tuesday.
went through the Augusta postoffice
at $50 p. m. on that day, and arrived
at my Portland Office just about the
hour 1 was beginning my address in
st. Adams. 1t was a twelfth, hour
repentance received by me the second
day after it was sent.
Auditor Hayford did not state
fact when he said was advised"
of his retraction prior to the lssu-
ance of my statement. 1t then was
too late for him to recant SO that
would receive it before speaking, and
my address had been printed q week
in advance. Apparently there was po-
liticaI pressure brought to bear by
Governor Brewster that could not be
resisted. The Auditors admission
that he inquired from Governor
Brewster" and the consultation" be-
tween himself and the Governor are
significant and would accountAfor the
contradictory statements.
When The State Auditor both in
conversation and in writing stated
that he distinctly remembered inter-
viewing the Legislative Committee,
it is difficult to see how his recol-
lection of such an important matter
can be revised after consultation"
with the Governor.
The Public Must Choose
The public must choose which of
the Auditors statements to believe;
the one confirming his several con-
versations with me and freely given
to me over his signature. or the afi-
davit furnished to Gov. Brewster
after my reply" had exposed the
latter's misstatement of figures and
of facts. The issue of veracity is not
between the Auditor and myself, or
between myself and the Governor.
These officials can settle this be-
tween themselves.
A signed statement from a respon-
sible public official should be just as
convincing and should carry equal
weight with his sworn-to ''affidavit''.
On the other hand If a statement in
the form of an affidavit be false 1t
can not be transformed into the
truth by the simple process of
swearing to it before notary. The
people are the judges but the charit-
able way to look at this Is to recog-
nize the Auditors confusion and en-
barrasSment.
An Absurdity
If, however, the special appropria-
ton of s277,363.04 (Chapter So. Pri-
vate and Special Laws, 1920 was in
fact added to the State tax rate the
situation is more absurd than ever
for it discloses a woeful lack Of un-
Outstanding of sound financial meth
DDS. Why should the tax payers be
burdened with this extra tax when at
all times there were ample funds in