Jasper County Democrat, Volume 1, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 October 1898 — PLEASE EXPLAIN [ARTICLE]

PLEASE EXPLAIN

These Official Figures, Defenders of the Court House Ring. The Democrat has said from the first that no true statement of the cost of the new court house would ever be made to the taxpayers of Jasper county, and to substantiate this statement we ask your careful consideration of the following items of record, and also ask that the republican press circle | here, the defenders of the gang that is robbing the people of thousands of dollars every year in the way of reckless expenditures of public money and giving out false statements of its use, explain the matters herein set forth. On June 22, 1898, an “official statement” of the cost of this court house was given out through the official organ, the Rensselaer Republican. From said statement we copy the following: The following is an exhibit of the actual cost of our new court house, not including the improvements of grounds, nor clock, for which settlement has not been made, the same not yet having been accepted. Total (expenditures) TO THIS DATE $141,731,94. The above includes the entire cost of the building, furniture and fixtures so far completed and accepted, and everything is completed and acceped except the clock and bell, and the improvements to the yard. The clock and bell, if accepted, cost $2,300. The filling, coping and walks in the yard, cost $8,300 contract price, to which about SSO will be added for extra cement. These items added to the above total will raise the entire cost of the building t0'5151,381.94. This grand total d6es not include the commissioners’ per diem and other expenses in extra sessions, nor their expenses in journeys taken in the court house business. These items are so unavoidably mixed with other matters, that their exact amount can not be ascertained. It can be positively stated however, that the entire amount of these other incidental expenses would not raise the entire cost of the building INCLUDING everything, to above $154,000. Note -the exact language of the above official statement, and bear in mind that being an official statement it must necessarilly have emanated from the auditor, the only person in a position to give out an official statement. Now comes the “funny part’' of this official statement. The auditor in his published report for the year ending May 31, 1897, statesthat there had been paid out (during the year) on new court house the sum of $50,732.99, and in his report for the year ending Mav 31, 1898, he states there was paid out on new court house during that fiscal year, 898,619.41. This, according to our system of figuring, makes a grand total of $149,352.40. Bear in mind, now, that this sum had actually been paid out on new court house up to May 31, 1898, and that the official statement given out June 22, purported to contain every penny’s expenditures made on same to that date (June 22). During the period intervening between May 31 and June 22, several thousand dollars more was paid out on the court house at the regular June session of the board of commissioners and none of this could have been included in the report made May 31. Neither was the per deim of the commissioners in special sessions, junketing trips, etc., (over $3,250) included, nor the clock ($2,300), yard and coping, walks, etc., ($8,906.50), interest on “temporary loan” ($668), or thousands of dollars more in the way of incidental expenses directly chargeable to the building of this court house, because the statement positively says it was not. But it did contain every cent paid out up to June 22, or so claimed. Now, in the face of these two annual reports, examined and approved by the commissioners, they have the gall to come before the people twenty-three days later with an official statement i stating that the “total expenditures to thiß date” (June 22) are but $141,731.94, or $8,620.46 LESS than the expenditures were OVER THREE WEEKS PREVIOUS. We confess that we are unable to reconcile these two statements, both of which are supposed to have emanated from the same source, the countv auditor. Will the Journal set its statistician (30 years in office) to work on this and figure out just why the total expenditures June 22, (notwithstanding the fact that several thousand dollars was paid out between May 31 and that date) were

$8,620.46 less than they were twenty-two days previous. We should also like to have the other republican papers tell us by what system of figuring this conclusion, was arrived at. and also publish a true statement of the total cost of that court house for the information of the tax {layers. It is time to open up th books in Jasper county.