Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-08-13

out dollar of extra money having
been raised by taxation.
"Lapses" and "Set-Up" Accounts
The Councillors and myself fully
understood that If all the appropria
lions made and 'set-up" by us had
been expended Immediately, the Con-
tingent Fund in the middle of the
fiscal year would not have been suf-
ficiently large to cover them, al
though there always was cash
enough to do so. This was merely
a bookkeeping matter, nothing
more. Drafts from that Fund au-
thorized by the Council are "set-up"
against it. These may be payable
at once or they may not be payable
until several months later. In fact
several large items authorized by us
in 1924 have not yet august 1920
become due and payable. To set
| up" accounts and thus create an
unfavorable bookkeeping balance,
| which my Administration did not do,
would not have been illegal; it is
the drawing of warrants" and the
| disbursement of money. to create an
| overdraft that is contrary to law.
My Administration looked ahead
and took cogniZance of the fact that
the Contingent Fund would be built
| up" by 'lapses" at the end of our
fiscal year, June so, 1925, which was
| the year for which we were finan-
| cially responsible.
Throughout Governor Brewster's
| message he deliberately misuses the
word "overdraft." An overdraft is
| n withdrawal of cash that more than
| eXhausts the fund from which the
cash is taken. When an account is
| ''set-up" it is merely a bookkeeping
entry, no cash being involved. In
| such a case there can be no over
, draft" or deficit" in the proper
sense of the term.
The State Treasury showed bal
| ances of cash on hand as follows:
! January !. 1925, 81 800, 1910: April
/, 1925, 81 ,617 .300.44, and July /,
1925. $2612, 4S4.51. The Baxter ad-
J ministration had planned for all
these matters and Governor Brew
ster had nosoccasion to be disturbed
+, over them.
The "RuIing" of the Attorney
Genera!
! Governor Brewster apparently Of
fered as an excuse for his attack
| that the Attorney General of Maine
| lldu IuleQ lIldl QlSDuISeIlieIllS
| could not be made from the State
Contingent Fund, if by doing so, an
overdraft of this Fund would appear
, on the States books. 1t is well,
| however, to remember that these
! appropriations were only to be set
| up against this fund. and that many
of them We're not due for long
time thereafter.
he er,, Of q
eral in this matter if applied only to
not be criticised. The law Is based
| on payment, not on sctting-up &C
counts.
| Governor Brewster deliberately
| misapplied this ruling to build up a
| false premise for his argument and
! his attack; he deliberately over
| looked the Attorney Generals use
| of the word pay" and neglected to
| explain the difference between mere
| bookkeeping entries such as set
ting-up" accounts, and payments
| or disbursements" s'N~
| Governor Brewster's distortion of
/ this ruling can not make my Coun-
( Gil and myself laW-breakers, nor can
it make lawful expenditures unlaw-
| full, or the State bankrupt when
there 10 plenty of money in the
| Treasury. The whole attack was
shallow and unwarranted. If Gov
| ernor Brewster had kept cool, had
acquired a broader knowledge OF
State finances, had studied the stu
alton carefully and waited until the
end Of the last administrations fiscal
year July /, 1920, he would have
found that all accounts had been
| properly cared for and that no Ill
Legal acts had been committed.
The Proper Course
II Governor Brewster had adopted
a consistent attitude and had proper
| ly interpreted the Attorney Generals
opinion, all he need have done was
to ask the Legislature to pass an
(! Act, a few lines in length, author
izing q temporary transfer from the
General Fund to the State Contin-
gent Fund of whatever was neces-
sary to meet and pay the "set-up'
F, accounts when they later became
| due. This would have been a proper
bookkeeping entry, and would have
| spared the reputation of his former
| friends. The transfer would have
been temporary and the account
| could have been re-transferred on
July ], 1925.
State Tax Not Increased by Especial
| Appropriation"
| Under Chapter IS. u. p. and S.
Laws of 1925, $277, 363.04 was ZAP
propriated" to cover the alleged
"overdrawn" accounts, which in
reality never had been overdrawn.
| There is no record in the State
Auditors Office that this sum of
$277. 36304 was included in the to-
| tails used as basis for making UP
! the 1925-1926 tax rate or that the
! State tax was increased by reason of
| it. The State Auditor informs me
| that this was discussed between him
and the Legislative committee, but
when it was found that there al
ready was enough cash in the Treas
| ury to pay all these items, they were
not included in the tax rate.
| 1t is apparent that the whole
| transaction was a gesture, a blunder,
was entered into in a moment of
| hysteria or was done deliberately for
! some motive that l will not attempt
, to explain. 1t could have been han
| died without alarming the citizens
of this State and without discredit-
| ing the Baxter administration. To
! imply that the State was almost
bankrupt, make a great splurge and
go through the empty form of ZAP
! propriating" S27T,363.04 to meet a
| crisis" and then three months later
discover $2,612,4S451 in the Treas
| ury must cause embarrassment to
| Governor Brewster.
! To criticise the record of former
| Governor and Council, to charge
tA,.-, 1r,.x "a,
to say that urgent need existed ito
protect the welfare and credit of the
State and conserve the various ac-
tiVities re1atipr ~ tho pub1ic ,,oaco