The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-08
A. An additional 2,123, ,O54.99. o. Now, how much is that? A. $42,004, ,344.91.

allure?
 A. The over-expenditure is $5,- 898, ,612.90, based on the available resources.
 O. Just a moment, MT. Brown, don't tell this jury that you have just deducted $38,228,787.10 from $42,OOO,0OO and got anything like S, 900 900?
 A. No. I didn't and I don't call it reduction. That is incorrect to de- duct that, MT. Seaman. That is just the point.
 o. l am conducting this cross-ex- animation and I'm going to have to insist that you answer my questions. Please answer the question that I have asked you. Put down exactly what the appropriation was orig inally.
 A. Yes.
 0. Now, put down how much was actually spent.
 A. Yes.
 Q. Now, MT. Brown, will you agree that if the salary donations were paid that the salary donations would have had to be added to the amount that was spent?
 A. Of course.
 o. Now, did you?
 A. I have done that.
 o. Now, that gives you $42,000,- : 900?
 A. It does.
 @. And that gives you an over- expenditure of how much?
 A. $5,898,612.9O.
 o. Will you do as ask you please? Will you substract $39,228,- 787.10 from $42,004, 4,344.91?
 A. Yes, I have.
 @. What does it show?
 Answer Is $3,775,557.91.
 A. The answer is $3,775, ,557.91.
 o. Now, going back to the orig inal sample illustration of 5000, did you just testify that over-expendi- ture would have been $400?
 A. But, IIr. Seaman
 @. Answer the question.
 A. No, I can't answer that ques- tion because you have not put the question:
 @. In other words, you mean that you're only answering the kind of questions you want.
 A. No. You're asking the Ques- tions contrary to the facts, MT. Sea- man.
 Q. Is there anywhere in the evil dence you can show me that the amount that was spent was not $39,- 100000.
 A. No, I haven't said 1t was.
 @. Isn't it true that if the city of Waterbury did not have salary do- nations of $2000,00O that they would have spent $42O00,000?
 A. That's correct.
 o. Now, if they spent 42,000, ,00O against the original appropriation of $38, 8,000,0 ,000, what is the over-expen- allure?
 A. They didn't have an original appropriation of $38,000,000, MT. Seaman. That is the point.
 o. Now, MT. Brown, I want you to turn to those schedules to find for instance, for the year 1892, what does that show?
 A. It says appropriation in the budget which is absolutely correct.
 o. How much is it?
 A. A total for the year 1892 of $6,2s8, 8,8O7.O5.
 Q. Yes. When you add all those appropriations don't you get $38,- 100000?
 A. Yes, do. Absolutely.
 Original Appropriation
 o. That is the original appropria- tion, isn't it?
 A. But that includes revenue an- ticipated from the salary cuts.
 Q. Do you realize what you are saying?
 A. Yes. We are dealing here..
 @. Just answer the question. Un- fortunately, you have never pre- pared budget and it is quite ob- vious that you have no understand ing of what budget is because
 Alcorn: Wait one moment. I ob- ject to that and ask that it be stricken from the record.
 Judge: It may go out. It is a statement, not question.
 o. When budget is prepared the appropriations are already de- termined. First they are estimates of what the amount will be required for expenditures to operate muni- cipality. Is that correct?
 A. Absolutely.
 @. Now, then, the city of Water- bury determined that over this pe- riod that they would have to spend $38, 100000. Isn't that correct? A. Based on 100 per cent of salary, yes.
 @. Now, MT. Brown, remember that you said that, that they would have to spend $38,000,000 on a 100 per cent salary.
 A. Yes, sir.
 o. I want you to put down how much money they spent and add to it how much they would have spent if they paid 100 per cent salary. Now do that please.
 Exactly $42,0O4, ,344.91
 A. Exactly $42.044,344.91.
 o. Now, MT. Brown, am going to ask a simple question. You agreed that the appropriation based on 100 percent salary was $38,000,000; you agreed that if they paid the 100 per- cent of salary that the amount that would have been spent would be $42,000,000. Dropping the odd amounts, the over expenditure would have been $3.775 900.
 A. No, sir
 e. If your honor please. I think that the question is simple enough and it is matter of simple arith- metic. I submit that the witness has already answered that the $38, 8,000,- 900 was the appropriation, $42,00O- 900 was spent, and he gave us the figure of over-expenditures $3,0O0- 900.
 A. The difference between those two figures would be $3.0O000O. That would not be the amount of ap- fr0Y,fiotfnf, haras.ua uya ora NaaIi,,a,