The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-11

witness.
 A. Continuing Creating spec ial school fund to be used for the erection of school buildings and additions in connection with it. And that fund is the fund which the charter of the City of Waterbury passed in the year 1881. Section 312 transfers money which is included in that special school fund in that department to the general treasury of the City of Waterbury. On the transfer of the special school fund to the general fund of $125, ,000, part of that transfer was made to the account Interest on floating debt" during the years to and including December 31, 1882 there had been items paid and charged to that ac- count to the amount of $93,677.17. Journal voucher 225 reflects a transfer to the special school fund of $3,432;> voucher 226 reflects a transfer from the surplus resource sinking fund of $40,245.17 which wiped out the over-expenditure in that account. Included in the &C., count of interest on floating debt for the year 1882 are payments which cannot be construed as interest; one of the items being a total pay ment to John s. Johnston of $13,000 that was left in the account of h. terest on Floating Debt. Those transfers effected in the year 1882 was to the account of interest on city debt. On December 31, 1892 the account indicated an over-expendi- ture of the original budget appro- priation of $1,292.87. The journal voucher 225 transferred $14,0O0 from the special school fund and journal voucher 226 transferred from the surplus resource sinking fund $27,- 292.87-the two items wiping out the over-expenditure in that account and leaving a thousand dollars; and it was in that condition as reported by the auditors of the city. In this account-interest on bonded mdebt- edness-there are included as of December 31, expenditures of $4,5OO which is disbursed to John Mo Grath: $2,50O which was disbursed to William E. Thoms and $7,000 which was disbursed to John S.. Johnston. Those are included as part of the expenditures for inter est on city debt.
 Without Comment
 o. And passed by the auditors without comment?
 A. Yes, sir.
 Q. Take the year 1883, MT. Brown, and explain the reduction found for that year.
 A. The total over expenditures for the year 1883 as shown in my schedule amounted to $275,9 .39 which was based on the original ap- propriation. The auditors reported to the city for the year 1883 an under-expenditure in the amount of SYPHILIS, representing in that re- duction $448,08324. It shows an under-expenditure by the auditors and my books show an over-expen- allure. Under heading of "Non- revenue receipts for additional ap- propriations, from the surplus re- source sinking fund, $448, ,08324.
 Q. Will you pass to the year 1884?
 A. The over expenditures as shown in the schedules prepared by me for the year 1884 amount to $669, 9,322.79; whereas the auditors report arranged by Kingsley & Go. for 1884 reported the over-expendi- lures as being $354,322.79, a net re- duction of $315,00O. Journal vouch- CT 180, December 31, 1884, transfers cash from the surplus resource sinking fund to the general fund, $65,000 The explanation is: Cash transferred from the surplus re- source sinking fund, second district to general fund, first district, as per instructions of MT. Leary and MT. Borgnaes. There was no vote of the board of finance or the board of sinking fund commission CTS or the board of alderman to make that transfer.