Year: 1879

Treasury ts---Their Accuracy Es-


tablished Beyond 0avil,


We are often treated to great de al
of learned talk in Congress and wise
disquisitions in the Democratic press
on the subject of Treasury book-keep-
ing. 1t is accompanied by the intima-
ton of immense over-issues'' of
United States notes and stocks and
bonds. Double payments of the same
accounts are also often alleged, and
forced balances of accounts of appro-
priations are limited at. To those who
are practically acquainted with the
system of bookkeeping which was long
ago adopted by the Treasury Depart
ment (and under Democratic rule, too,
we believe), these silly declamations,
oracular announcements of irregulari-
ties and wise deprecations of Nation 8
loss through Republican embezzelment
are supremely ridiculous, not to say
disgusting. Any one versed in the
science of bookkeeping can discover
by u glance that with the admirable
system of checks and balances" then
adopted and now prevailing in the
Treasury the alleged or insinuated i" ir-
regularities" could not possibly occur
without such false entries as would in
volve the cooperation and conspiracy
of all the hundreds of accountants in
the department. No one person can
possibly perpetrate a fraud by false en-
try without being detected and exposed
in some other bureau or division.
Again, the loan books are all kept upon
the double-entrv system, and must bal
ance precisely before checks for matur-
ed interest can issue. The interest
checklist must aggregate just no more
and no less than the matured interest
on the amount of that particular loan
then outstanding. No debit entry is
made upon the journals of the Treasury
without a corresponding credit for the
same amount.


"By journal laws what you receive


Is debtor made to what you give'n


This principle governs all Treasury
bookkeeping. 1t is correct in theory
and accurate in practice. No set of
books kept in compliance with its rules
will hide embezzlements, or squarely
balance where one has been attempted,
without an exposure of the fact.


The discrepancies which have often
been instanced for partisan purposes,
as existing between published state
ments of receipts and expenditures"
from various sources, are no evidences
of fraud and embezzlement, or even of
Irregularities. One may have been
taken from the books of the warrant di-
vision (for instance) of the Secretary's
Office, while another may have been
drawn from the Registers report, and
still another from the Treasurer state
ment. 1t is highly probable that many
of the accounts for which warrants were
drawn in the Secretary's office in June
of any one year would not reach the
Registers books after final adjustment
before the succeeding August or Sep
tember. 1t would not be reasonable to
suppose, therefore, that the books of the
warrant division and those of the Reg
ister's Office would agree upon given
dates, whereas they would entirely
agree upon the disposition of any given
appropriation or any specified loan.


1t is a remarkable fact that since the
adoption of the present system of ac-
counts in the Treasury, no competent
expert has been able to pick flaw in
it or to shake or disturb the equanimity
of the quarterly and monthly and an
nual balances made under it. And
while this is true, it is also true that
many experts and famed accountants
have been selected for partisan pur-
poses, and employed to come here and
expose the ''cat under the pile of mear'
in the Treasury. They have one and
all, after months of delving and scruti-
ny and worriment, either died in the
harness or have gracefully given up the
hunt with the acknowledgment of the
accuracy of the books, the correctness
of the balances and the honor of the
official accountants.


Senator Davis, of West Virginia, has
been engaged for many years in the
laudable effort to unearth alleged
frauds, and thus account for apparent
discrepancies in statements of receipts
and expenditures. During the first half
decade of his search he attributed his
failure to the fact that majority of his
committee were opposed to him in poll
tics, and therefore not in sympathy
with the object of his inquiry. But
now that he has had majority of his
own way of political thinking since last
March, and all of them keen upon the
scent and as anxious as himself for dis
covery of Republican corruption, it is
most lamentable to discover that his
success has been no whit better. His
experts have also succumbed to the ac-
curacy of the official accountants, and
have attested to the singular beauty
and efficiency of the Treasury system
of bookkeeping. Perhaps the most
convincing testimony that the Senator
could give of his belief in the accuracy
of the accounts and the fidelity with
which they are handled may be found
in the fact that his children (by his ad-
vice and consent, of course) have re-
Gently made investments in the four per
cent. consols. Such an act speaks vol
umes. Comment upon it would be su-
perfiuous. The declamations of Davis,
the denunciations of Beck, the hyper
bole of Voorhees,, the cynicism of Eaton
and Thurman all go for naught as COM
pared with the silence of the profession
al experts and the investments in trust
for children of Senator Davis. Nation
nj PpT9LbLicn1a