Attempt To Deceive

The Courier this week again jnggles with county figures and shows itself the most, expert jnggler on record. Auyone, however, eau juggle with figures, who niakes statements regardiug figures without regard to the truth. ïo indícate what we inean we quote f rom the Courier : "The first column in the tables published in the Argus shows the expenditures for the current year from January last to October Ist. Tbe second column shows the expenditnres for the three months previous to January Ist I of the year. By taking the table for '95 it will be found that the republican expenses from January Ist to October Isi were $28,485.79, while the democratie expenses for tbeir last quarter was $13,878.28. The two together rriake the total amount the Argus charges the republicaus with expending. " Now the elemeut of truth in this statement is laokiug. The first column shows the amount paid on the order of the clerk and the second shows the amount of county orders, allowed by the board of supervisors, the two together show the total expenses. This being the fact, everyoue kuows that the board of supervisors has not yet goae out of the business of auditing hills, even for a repnblicau administration. Now, the Argus bas gathered no fignies except the official report of tha committees of tbe board uf supervisors who are each year appointed to make suoh tables. These tables are priuted each year in the proceedings aud the tables of expenditures in the last two reports were published entire in last week's Argns. No seleotious of figures were made. The Courier on the other hand makes its own figures, aud iu doiug so shows its lameutable ignorance of the eleineut of time in ooutrasting expenses, which makes its figures absolutely valuless. Let us take oue instanue. The C jurier gives a table of figures to snow that Brenner's expenses iu 1894 were $6,700.92 and Judson's expenses iu 1895, $44,358.90. Tuis 'is the way the Courier makes up tbesa figures. Breuner's bilis, allowed October session 1894, S4,800.60; allowed January eession 1396, $1,900.32. Judsou's bilis allowed October session 1894, $4,358.90. Now, our readers will all remember that there was no January session of the board iu 1894, so tbat the bilis allowed at the üutober sessiou were for a full year. Su the Courier iu Brenuer's year, 1894, takes a full year's bilis and adds to them three months' bilis of the next ourrent year, making the $6,700.92 cover the perind of fifteen months. But it cou't say so, it leads everybody to infer ihat this arnount covers just a year. On the other haud in 1895, Judson's year, there was a January session of the board of supervisors, whioh allowed the bilis for three months The Ootober session of that year allowed bilis then fpr only uine months. So that the Courier's figures for Judson were nine months only. But it don't say so. It leads you to infer that they were for one year. With these things understood, how do the Courier figures pan out? Brenner, fifteen ruonths, $6,700.92,or an average of $446.73 per month. Judson, nine montbs $4,358.90, or an average of $484.33 per rnonth, which shows according to the Courier's own figures, tbat Judson's average niouthly expenses were $37.60 more than Brenner's. But let us look a Httle farther into the Courier methods of figuring. Take y our supervisors' reports of 1894 or 1895, and look at the tables of expenditures or yonr Argus of last week vvhicn publishes these tables verbatim and we will prove to you that tbe Courier uses one metbod of figuring for demooratio officers and another method for republican officers. In the supervisors' proceedings for 1894, add together the three items, sberiff's fees, board of prisoners.and deputy sheriff s' fees and you have $4,800.60, which is the amount the Courier set down for the bilis allowed Brenuer's admiaistratiuu iu the October session tor a year. Pursue the same niethod vith the report of 1895 and yon will find that the total of these three items is f7,885.71. But the Courier does not pursue the sume ïuetbod as it would show up bad]y for its candidato. Each of these reports covers a year. Why canuot the sume method of flguriug be employed. Why should such good republicana as John R. Miner, Evart H. Soott and John L. Huuter, put their names to reports nnleas the people eau take them as correct. If the Courier can trust these reports in Brenner's case, why not in Jadsou's?