The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-08
Brown Fights to Prove Original Figures Right

expenditures. We must deal with revenue. @. MT. Brown, you don't mean that in determining an over-expen- allure that you have anything to do with revenue. A. We have to determine the amount available to be spent, MT. Seaman, and that is the point here. Mir. Seaman--the amount available to be spent. @. With reference to these sal- ary donations you admit that if the salaries were $5O00 that 1t would make no difference whatsoever what the revenues are, but as a matter of fact, that would be what would have to be spent?
 A. We have got to determine the amount available for expenditure, first.
 Q. Isn't it a fact that all your testimony that you have given that you have given with reference to expenditures, you have given many, many pages of testimony re- garding over-expenditure- that you always only dealt with one thing and that was how much was ap- propriated and how much was spent? Isn't that correct? Theory Different A. On the schedules put in my testimony, I deat with an entirely different theory. 0. don't care about your theory, MT. Brown. Whenever you gave over-expenditures, will you tell me how you could possibly sit there and say that you didn't consult or deal with anything? Turn to that sched- ule for the year 1882. Haven't you testified here in court that you took the original appropriation? A. Absolutely, MT. Seaman. @. And then you dealt with the net appropriation? A. Yes.
 Q. And then you testified how much was spent?
 A. Yes. And that was used to determine the over-expenditure? A. Yes. ~. O1 course you did.
 A. went beyond that.
 o. MT. Brown, an over-expendi- ture is the difference between how much is appropriated and how much is spent.
 A. No, MT. Seaman, not in this case, no.
 o. Assuming now, MT. Brown, with reference to the sample il- lustration of $5000 that you had an appropriation of $5000 and your ex- penditure was $5400 and that you did not have any revenue, whatso- ever, would your over-expenditure be $400?
 A. You can't spend something you haven't got, MT. Seaman.
 o. I'm going to assume a step further that they borrowed the money.
 A. If we borrowed the money to meet that expenditure, we have $4O0 over-expended.
 What Is Over-Expenditure
 @. Assuming that the city did not have one penny or revenue not one penny-and they made a budget. They saw that they had to spend $38,000,000 and they actually spent what you said. $42,000, ,00O. What would the over-expenditure be?
 A. $42,000,0OO.
 @. What would the over-expen- allure be?
 A. s42,ooo,ooo. We haven't got any
 @. You either don't understand my questions-$38, 900 000 was ap- propriated, wasn't it, in this budget?
 A.. No, sir, not to be raised in taxation. That is the point I want to get over. They haven't got that much money available for expendi- ture and we are building on an hy- potheses.
 Q. I am trying to get this before the jury. Assuming now, that the city of Waterbury did not have any revenue whatsoever. They are go- ing to borrow the money. How much money did this budget au- thorize for expenditure according to your schedules for appropriations?
 A. The original appropriation $38 ,000, ,000.
 Q. That's right. Now, again, how much would they have spent if they paid full salary?
 A. $42,000,000.
 @. Which means that they would have over-expended that appro- priation by $3,775,O0O
 Not Right Hypotheses
 A. The difference between those two figures would have been that. That isn't the right hypothesis.
 @. I am not interested in your hypothesis.
 A. No. I want to give the correct answer to it.
 Q. Don't you think that my pro- position is simple enough?
 A. It doesn't take in the factors in this case. To build hypotheti- cal question we've got to have the factors in the same. You are not including here one of the principle factors which we have in the city of Waterbury case in building your hypothetical question.
 ~. MT. Brown, you actually spent how much money in the city of Wa terbury deducting the salary dona- tions?
 A. $39,000,000 plus. .
 @. How much were the appropria- tions against which those expendi- lures were made?
 A. The available appropriations were $36,105. .732.01.
 o. Now, MT. Brown, if you paid the full amount of salary donations, isn't it true that you would have had to add the expenditures and also to the appropriations?
 A. No, sir.
 Q. You couldn't possibly mean that?
 A. Yes, I do mean it. The origin al appropriation contains an anti cipated receipt of that $2,000,O0O.