- Bankrupt-Greenwood County -
The following article relates to the financial situation related to a shortage of funds for Greenwood County Road purposes and public comments to the shortage of funds: “In September of 1916 Greenwood County treasurer Henley discovered that payments of bills for county road purposes allowed by the commissioners at their meeting the previous week for the month of August 1916, will overdraw the road fund by $437.81. This does not take into consideration bills that have accumulated since September 1, 1916. The August bills against the road fund amounted to $4,483. If the September bill is as large, the commissioners will face a deficit in this fund of almost $5,000 at their next meeting, October 1, and it may reach the substantial sum of $20,000 before taxpaying time, provided the commissioners can get men to work for them and accept vouchers stamped “not paid for want of funds.” The Kansas Supreme Court has decided that it is not only illegal to issue warrants in excess of funds, but prohibits the transfer of money from one fund to another. What is to be done for money to run the county, both general expense and road expense, between now and taxpaying time is a question for the courts to decide? A Statement of Facts: The publication last week of the report that Greenwood County is bankrupt caused much comment. A few people think The Herald is too hard on the commissioners.
The Herald has no desire to be unfair to the county board. It printed the story as a plain statement of facts concerning the finances of the county, information it believes every taxpayer has a right to know, and the figures quoted are correct.
The county road fund was overdrawn $437.81 last Thursday morning and there was $917.46 in the county general fund. There is less now. If there is any revenue received to increase these funds The Herald will be glad to give it the same publicity it gave the overdraft. We are informed there is some money due the county from townships, there is also a 5 per cent division of the taxes that has not been placed to the credit of the county general and the road funds, the fees received from the register of deeds’ office, the probate judge’s office and the clerk of the court’s office for the quarter ending October 1, will add to the general fund. If the miscellaneous bills against the county are kept down to bedrock, and these funds are paid in, there will be enough money to pay the general expenses of September. No one knows how the bills will be paid from October until January 1917. The road fund is already exhausted and the only way that seems open to the commissioners is to stop the road work, as the bills for September, already contracted, and the overdraft on the book now, will more than offset any money that may be paid into this fund.
But someone says: “Suppose we are broke. We have the conveniences that the money expended has brought to the county.” That is true, but it is not all of the story. We all like conveniences. No one has too many, but should the county be run in debt and the taxpayers burdened to get these things. There isn’t a family in Greenwood County that wouldn’t like a nicer residence than it has at present, one with more rooms, better built, more luxuriously furnished. But wouldn’t it be the height of folly for every man in the county to build a big house and bankrupt himself to pay for it. Improvements at the court house are desirable. New furniture for the court room would enhance its beauty and convenience. Good roads are essential. Fine large bridges are beautiful and useful. The bridge built last fall across Snake Creek, two hundred yards east of Commissioner Holmes’ residence, is a beauty and one of the finest structures in the county. But could the taxpayer afford to pay $1,655 for a 50foot span, stone arch bridge, containing 13,500 pounds of steel, across a small creek that is dry half the year, on a side road that is not a county road nor mail route and is traveled very little? And this at a time when material steel and cement were higher in cost than ever before. If a bridge were needed, wouldn’t it have been wiser to have built one that cost $500 or to have waited until the county was in a better financial circumstance, and wouldn’t that have been done had the commissioners been paying the money out of their own pockets. We mention this bridge because here was an opportunity to practice economy where no one would have been greatly inconvenienced and the taxpayers would have appreciated the savings of this money.
The people have seen their taxes increase year after year while real estate values have not kept pace with the increase. And this is not only true of Greenwood County land, but of real estate everywhere. These are lean years. When the average merchant looks at his sale sheets this fall, he will wonder why his taxes are so high. The same will be true of the farmer who goes into his field to shuck corn or harvest his kaffir, and the stockman who ships his stock to market. This is not a time for extravagance, yet the county commissioners have gone ahead increasing the expenditures of the county and asking the taxpayers to put up more money year after year.
If the people’s interests are of no importance, then the Herald has done wrong in mentioning these things, but until the men and women who foot the bills tell it to stop, this paper will continue publishing the facts concerning public business and stating conditions as they are. We would be pleased to have the general fund of the county and road fund hold out until next year’s taxes are available, but it is well known they will not. Notwithstanding the fact that more money is being raised by direct taxation and more money is pouring into the county coffers by reason of fees received than ever before, the county is in bad shape financially and will not be able to meet its bills. Even the thousands of dollars in fees collected in the register of deeds’ office from the registration of gas and oil leases. A source of revenue not anticipated by anyone, has been swallowed up along with other revenue raised and the tax levy for general purposes is as high as the state law will permit the commissioners to make it.
These are plain, blunt facts. They cannot be gainsaid (denied). The records speak for themselves and the people have a right to know.
The following was an article in the September 28, 1916 Herald continuing the commenting on the county financial situation: Can’t Shift Responsibility: The attempt in last week’s Messenger to cloud the issue in the controversy concerning the county’s financial condition adds another chapter to the shame of Greenwood County. It is bad enough to squander the people’s money, but it is certainly the height if imprudence to brag about it. The commissioners will not attempt to deny that the county road fund is exhausted or that the general fund will be in the same condition before next year’s taxes are available. To ask a county official to transfer funds from one account to another in violation of state law would be condemned by every decent citizen. The question that confronts the board at this time is to keep down expenses the remainder of the year so that as few people as possible will have to hold warrants indefinitely. In other counties where the commissioners have run the counties into debt the banks have refused to cash these warrants even at a discount. The banks take no chances on getting their money. They know that the law of the state and the supreme courts decisions are made to be obeyed.
The whole story in a nutshell is simply this: The commissioners have spent more money than they should; they have taxed the people to the limit for general revenue funds and the money is insufficient to pay the increased expenditures. Economy would have solved the problem.
The attempt to lay the blame for the building of a 50-foot span, concrete arch bridge, containing 13,5000 pounds of steel, across Snake Creek near Commissioner Holmes’ residence on the men who signed a petition for a bridge at that place will react against the commissioners. Not one man in five who signed that petition ever expected such a bridge as the one that was built. It is ridiculous to assume that the taxpayers wanted the county to spend $1,655 on a bridge at that ford. They wanted a good and substantial bridge in keeping with the necessities of the situation, not a monument of stone, concrete and steel that would hold up a railroad train, across a creek that is dry a large part of the time.
It is an insult to the petitioners to assume that they wanted or asked for such a bridge. And speaking of petitions there is a petition on file in the county clerk’s office signed by forty men, many of whom signed the petition for the Snake Creek bridge, asking for a bridge across Merket Creek near the Sam Croft place in Fall River township. Was that petition allowed? No, it wasn’t and the bridge has not been built, but if half the money spent at Snake Creek had been used there two good and substantial bridges could have been built for the price of one. Was this economy? Was it justice to the taxpayers?
A petition signed by more than sixty taxpayers was presented to the present county board asking for a bridge across Otter Creek, at the Batton ford about five miles southwest of Climax in Otter Creek township. This ford is on a main traveled road and is one of the most dangerous fords in the county. Did the commissioners feel that the request of these sixty taxpayers should be answered? No. They refused to build the bridge, but the Snake Creek bridge was built. These are matters of record that the commissioners will be expected to explain to the people of Greenwood County, but they shouldn’t hide behind other people in justifying their actions.
