There are in addition quite a number of minor special funds created in most cases by statutes establishing a regulatory or public service department or agency of the State with power to collect fees and other charges and to use such collections to defray their expenses of operation. In some cases the unexpended balances in these funds lapse at the end of the year and then become a part of the General Fund. In other cases the unexpended balances do not lapse. These minor special funds have no corresponding cash accounts and are treated as a part of the General Fund. The six major special fund accounts have corresponding cash accounts which agree with the balances of the respective funds, except for the amounts of any outstanding warrants. There is no account for the General Fund, and if at any time it should be desired to know the exact condition of this fund, an extensive computation would be necessary. For practical purposes the account called "general expenditure fund cash" is interpreted as representing the General Fund balance. This is not entirely accurate, however, for two reasons: first, because there are included in this account cash balances of minor special funds, and second, because in order to maintain certain limited expenditure accounts, representing appropriations chargeable against the major special funds, moneys allotted for these expenditures are transferred out of the special fund cash accounts to the general expenditure fund cash account. To ascertain the unappropriated balance of the General Fund would be almost an impossibility. No account is taken of incumbrances upon funds or appropriations as represented by contracts, orders, invoices, or vouchers payable or of any charges or credits that might have accrued.

Revenue and expenditure accounts are kept on a strictly cash basis and the year's accounts are cut off at the exact date when the year expires without regard for revenues due under the preceding year's laws and operations, or even for receipts actually collected but not deposited in the treasury at the day of closing. On the other hand, expenditures incurred in the closing days of the fiscal year and authorized under the appropriations of the year, are unless warrants have been

drawn for them prior to the hour of closing, charged against the following year's accounts. This practice is not justifiable in any respect. It is essentially illegal, though the laws have made no definite prescriptions on this particular point. Besides other considerations this practice has the effect of producing differences between the Auditor's accounts and those of departments, and these differences may be important in some cases, as for instance, in accounting for moneys contributed by the Federal government. They would be important too in budget statements if such statements were properly compiled.

There is no complete set of revenue or receipt accounts classified according to their source or character and there is no complete set of expenditure accounts classified as to character or purpose or on any single consistent basis. In fact, as has been stated, receipts and expenditures are frequently combined in the same account, and reimbursement and correction entries are not distinguished from those of true receipts and expenditures. This being true of the total receipts and disbursements of the treasury it is necessarily true of receipts and disbursements of the several funds. True totals are not obtainable.

Much more important is the apparent misapplication of the provisions of the statutes with reference to the assignment or distribution of revenues to funds. For instance there is one item of the ad valorem property tax which is distributed as though it were a license tax, and there are two license taxes or a license tax and a privilege tax which are distributed as though they were property taxes. There are a number of other instances of apparent mistaken application of revenues.

Some excuse for this class of errors is furnished by the unorganized, incomplete, inconsistent, and ambiguous laws relating to the State revenues and their uses. A further excuse in one instance is to be found in a decision of the Court of Appeals which it is necessary to conclude was based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. But making all

other business by widening his margin of profit on his contract with the State.

As a matter of fact, the prices of paper generally did recede considerably from 1920 to 1923.

A feature of the contract procedure which is particularly objectionable is suggested in this recent experience, viz: that responsibility for any extravagance is divided between the administration which lets the contract, and the one which operates under it.

Discretion as to Objects and Amount of Printing: The purpose of the law of 1918, putting the control of printing into the hands of the Printing Commissioners is commendable in so far as it undertakes to curb extravagances in this particular class of expenditures. In many cases a board so constructed can doubtless exercise a restraining influence with a great deal of practical common sense and good judgment. During the last administration, a curb was put upon the indiscriminate printing of biennial reports by the various departments, many of which were so poorly put together as not to serve any good purpose. There seems to be a pretty general lack among the State departments of ability to construct reports which will give the public the kind of information which it desires or should have. The administration is to be commended for its action in most such cases.

On the other hand, the placing of large discretion in such ex-office boards is likely to prove unfortunate. The University and the Geological Survey, for example, are called upon from time to time to print reports of research activities which in many cases have a great value to students in particular fields. It is rather too much responsibility to place on a board comprised of laymen to require them to pass on the desirability of publishing such studies.

In making its decisions as to the proper quantities to be printed, the board seems to have very little basis of fact, and depends entirely upon its general impressions. Apparently

the word of the department involved is usually taken at face value. Nor does there seem to be any principle followed as to the period for which a given amount of supplies is expected to fill the needs of the department. It has been stated also that one State agency ordered five hundred thousand letterheads, admitting that this amount was many times the requirements for early use. When the department's representative was asked for an explanation, he replied that he wished to use up the current year's appropriation!

Of course, such practices as these work in the direction of extravagance. While there is much to be said in support of a policy of printing sufficient quantities in the case of any given job to fill future requirements for a reasonable period, there is nothing to be said in favor of loading up on staple articles in quantities sufficient for years to come when such printing could be executed practically as cheaply in smaller quantities without the risk of deterioration of the stock.

Allocation of Paper Costs:

Since 1918, the costs of actual printing as distinct from paper stock have been charged against the departments. The latter, however, may still draw upon the common supply of paper furnished under the fourth class (but not the third class) contract, under such restrictions as have been noted above. This procedure deserves the severest criticism. Unless the departments are charged with the actual costs of paper, their actual expenditures are, in many cases, likely to be much in excess of what the published figures show. In many cases, actual printing items may involve only nominal amounts, but the stock may run into comparatively large sums. In such cases, it would be an easy matter for a department to waste a considerable amount of the State's revenues and escape deserved censure. It is recommended that each department be charged with the amount of paper used in all its activities.

Records:

The law requires the Superintendent of Public Printing to estimate the amount of paper stock used in each job, and

to keep this in a properly indexed book. The Superintendent appears to be conscientiously complying with this requirement. It is very doubtful, however, whether such records are of much value. What would be more desirable would be a current inventory of paper stock against which the amounts used by the printer would be checked off. The Superintendent makes a physical count from time to time of the paper actually in the possession of the contractor, but does not compare the actual total amounts of paper used with the total amounts estimated by him as needed for the various jobs.

No file is kept in the Superintendent's office of the forms printed up. Such a record would involve little effort, and should prove useful in many ways.

Check on Advertising Charges:

The State departments frequently place official advertisements in various local newspapers. A statutory charge is fixed. for such publications. It is the duty of the Superintendent to check the bills for such advertising. This seems to be done in a satisfactory manner.

Comments and Suggestions:

Greater economies in the cost of printing and paper can be effected by the departments themselves, than by better bargaining or control over the contractors, though neither approach to this problem should be neglected.

There is a marked tendency on the part of many of the departments to resort to display through the use of embossed stationery and expensive paper. Each department has its own type of letterhead. This is a matter of minor importance, but is perhaps somewhat suggestive of a lack of interest in small economies.

Another source of expense to the State arises from the lack of editorial care in the preparation of copy. Very few of the departments seem to have anyone on their staff who