The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-07

ley.
 Expenditure Oked
 The vote, Brown said, authorized the expenditure of the 952A,763, but but there was no provision of the Board of Aldermen for the trans Her of money Into the street depart ment which was in excess of the grand total paid in the street de- partment for wages in that year.
 The $524,7e3 transfer referred to bonds issued for welfare purposes 1r | 1886.
 In that year, Seaman brought out $l,500, 900 bonds were funded for re- lief purposes. In support of the bonds he demonstrated & certificate from the Emergency Relief Commis- sion, approving the issuance of the bonds, for use in welfare, street and sewer construction, and for WPA. The minutes of the board of alder men showed aa approval of the item.
 In support of the item of SEA- 76350, a transfer made during that year, Seaman also referred Brown to the certihcate from the E. R. c.
 Defending the Kingsley audits for that year, Seaman pointed out that the item was listed as an added ap- propriation of $524, ,763.50. and com- mented on as recommended by the E. R. c.
 | Agrees Now
 Despite this, however, Brown con- tended that he did not know what the item was when he read about 1t in the Kingsley audit comments He said that anyone reading the comments would not immediately understand the procedure.
 T know now," he agreed with Seaman.
 Further attacks on the accuracy of the schedule prepared by Brown to show more than 2 million dol- lars in city checks passing to un- known persons through the Water bury Trust Company were inaugu- rated with testimony concerning a check for $2,500 which was mention ed during testimony yesterday.
 Brown was to have checked the records of the bank for the history of the check, which was included in the aunidentified" columns of his survey.
 He said today that the record was unavailable, but that it ap- parently did not come through the Waterbury Trust Company" Seaman contended then that the ; conclusion arose from that that the schedule was incorrect so far as that item was concerned.
 } Brown insisted that the item was still unidentified as to payee, but that 1t had not originally cleared through the Waterbury Trust.
 You dealt with that item al- though it was not even city of Waterbury check" charged Seaman. Should Be Excluded
 'Insofar as the Waterbury Trust was concerned, but not the city of Waterbury" replied Brown. He then admitted, however that it should not have been included in the schedule, which dealt with checks going through the Waterbury Trust Co.
 Following that line of testimony came the arguments which led to the admission by Brown that he had made an error of $2l23,054 in com- putting the total over-expenditures l which might have resulted if the city employees had not taken Q wage cut. When Attorney Seaman argued that no bond issue can be author ized by the general assembly until the appropriation is made. Brown collntered with the remark,
 "But MT. Kingsley accepted as an appropriation $5oo000 in bonds which had not even been author ized by the general assembly," The remark was stricken from the rec ord.
 Nc Definite Rule
 Concerning comments in an audit Brown admitted that there was no rule which held that an auditor must make comments in connection with his audit. Brown admitted that If an auditor SO chooses he needn't make any comments.
 Seaman pointed out that some auditors make voluminouS com- ments while others are more sum- marized. But Brown insisted that if an auditor finds something wrong, 1t is his duty to comment SO that the party who engages him might knew the condition.
 That's your opinion" said Sea- man.
 "Of course," answered Brown.
 At that point Brown denied that he could recall any criticism that was ever made concerning report prepared by him,
 Seaman refreshed his memory with question as to whether. Jasper McLevy, socialist mayor of Bridge bort and recent candidate for gov- ernor had made such a comment in the press.
 True Picture
 He asked if 1t was not so that Mc- Levy had claimed that Browns audit had not presented 2 true picture" of the subject of the audit Brown admitted that such was the charge made, but added that MoLeyy had also stated that everything in the audit was correct,
 Brown contended that .MeLevy was not satisfied with the audit be- cause it covered a period of time other than he expected. The audit was conducted at the request of the finance commission of the General Assembly, and not McLevy, Brown continued,
 On suggestion of Seaman, Brown also testified that it is true that al times an accountant might have some one differ with him as to the presentation of report. Asked if he felt that the comment concerning the McIevy audit val incorrect. Brown said, 'T think hs lMcLevyl admitted it was incorrect He didn't criticize me-" T showed q condition he didn't ' like to be shown. was honest with