completely mystified not only themselves, but the large contingent of millionaires, who dwell here, was thoroughly demonstrated at a recent meeting in the town hall.

One thousand citizens listened for three and a half hours, with the temperature at 95, to learn that the town owed $450,000 and had only $100,000 to be collected on the other side of the ledger.

The investigating committee was told it had exceeded its authority in going back ten years, instead of one. The committee reported that it could not find a starting point later than ten years ago. The committee was finally discharged and the townsfolk went home to cool off.

The committee had been appointed last October to investigate the reports of town officers. Its report was a signal for a discussion that rivaled the thermometer.

Millionaire residents jumped up in the meeting and announced that if they had known the rottenness of the town affairs they would never have settled there. Others offered to sell off their homes and property on the spot for panic prices.

The voters were told that their officeholders, being in most cases native farmers, had lacked a knowledge of bookkeeping. No one was accused of theft, but there were figures, and the townsfolk were told that figures do not lie.

In the day-book of one aspiring town official was recorded $12,000 for dog licenses. There was another

entry in the day-book of license fees for dogs of the mongrel variety, $178. The tax collector had paid out $111,000 more than he collected in one year.

Hiram June, town treasurer, had not kept his books in good form. He was allowed to be heard.

"I ain't much of a hand at keeping books," he said, "and if they weren't done just right I'll make it square with the committee."

Frederick Beltz, a lawyer, spoke for the element in the community doing business in New York. He said that if the condition of the town were known Greenwich would have less New Yorkers here than those who are to-day gladly welcomed and fleeced at every opportunity. After thoroughly frightening everybody the committee satisfied the voters that the confiscation of their homes was not threatened. Then the resolution discharging the committee was passed.

CORRECT ACCOUNTING THE TAXPAYERS'

SAFEGUARD.

Correct accounting is to the science of business what the mariner's compass is to the science of navigation. Successful operation is as dependent upon correct accounting in the one case as it is upon a correct compass in the other. This proposition is so clearly true one almost feels like apologizing for urging it upon the attention of intelligent readers. The address of Mr. Harry B. Henderson, state examiner of Wyoming, on the subject of "Uniform Account

ing and State Examination of Public Accounts," and the lecture by Alexander C. Humphreys, widely known civil engineer, on the "Value of Instruction in Bookkeeping and Accounting," should be read and studied by every young man, business man and taxpayer in this country. Both of these addresses draw their most convincing illustrations from experience. Work done, not theories, is what they talk about. The recital will satisfy you that the reports are given by men who know the truth and are telling it. After reading these addresses read the item from the Western Electrician on the "Advantages of Public Accounting for Public Service Corporations," the one from the Engineering News on "The Determination of Reasonable Charges by the Interstate Commerce Commission," and from California Municipalities on "Publicity of Public Service Corporations." You will find yourself ready to ask the question, what obstruction stands in the way of the immediate adopton of a uniform system of public accounting, auditing and publication? The answer is the inertia of public opinion. There is not a member of any of the twentyseven state legislatures soon to be in session who will not be proud of the privilege of having his name as sponsor upon a bill to require and provide for a uniform system of public accounting, auditing and publication for all public accounts of the state if he was satisfied the measure was demanded by a majority of the intelligent voters of his district. There is not a

member of a Legislature who will refuse to vote for the enactment of such a measure if he is informed by the voters of his district that they desire him to do so. If any voter can give a good reason for not wanting this thing done we shall be glad to have our own opinion corrected by him, and will publish his reasons for the information of our readers.

In every well-managed business the correct accounting for expenditures is as carefully insisted upon as the accounting for income. Mr. Humphreys clearly shows how a failure to manage a business in conformity with the requirements of the correct rules of scientific accounting preordains that business to failure. Is it any less certain to do so when the business is a public undertaking? In a private business only the owners suffer for their ignorance or neglect. The failure of the business stops the process. In a public undertaking taxpayers suffer, and as the business cannot be closed up they must and will suffer perpetually, or until they require the adoption of a proper accounting system. Read Mr. Henderson's statement, showing how taxation has been reduced, efficient government promoted and public credit improved by the simple and inexpensive process of correct accounting and public auditing. "Inexpensive process" in this connection does not convey the right idea. "Profitable process" is the correct term. None of the taxpayers' money is more profitably spent than that paid for the services and expenses of the state

examiner. Yet, in diregard of this truth, there are those who ignorantly or corruptly oppose the adoption of a comprehensive system of public accounting and auditing, on the ground of its expense. This is a good deal like the rude ideas of the would-be engineers, who do not think it necessary to study accounting, because bookkeepers can be hired so cheaply. Mr. Humphreys, speaking from the vantage ground of a long and wide experience in dealing with affairs of the first magnitude, tells the undeveloped students that they will be the ones who will be hired cheaply if they cannot prove themselves masters, not only of their engineering specialty, but also of the accounts which record the results of operations following their recommendations. This is just as true of taxpayers. They must pay the costs of a uniform system of public accounting and auditing or they will pay ten times the amount in inefficient management of the public business. Their choice is between paying for a process that will make efficient government a certainty and paying a much heavier price for inefficiency.

Why is it necessary to urge upon you the importance of voicing your own demand that the profitable process of uniform accounting and auditing shall be made mandatory for all public accounts within your state? If you cannot control public accounts that are your own, how can you expect the accounts of corporations to be controlled so as to apply to them the regulative force of publicity?