in securing probably ten statements and, after a fruitless attempt to coordinate these statements so that I might secure information which would enable me to know whether we were doing better or worse than our neighbors, I became hopelessly lost in a jungle of statistics and reluctantly gave it up as useless, and turned my attention to doing what I could to place our own county affairs in such condition that they could be understood by those of our taxpayers who might be inquisitive enough to want to know how the money was handled which they paid for taxes. [Footnote:  M. S. Willard, County Finances in North Carolina, in the University of North Carolina record, No. 159, October, 1918, p. 80.]

THE FEE SYSTEM

The practice of compensating county officers from fees received for special services and of allowing them to retain the interest on public money is one illustration of extravagant business methods.

For many of the services performed by county officers fees are charged, on the principle that the person served should pay for the service.  It did not occur to the people to inquire how much their officers were getting in this way.  In one county, in which there was a large city, investigation showed that the sheriff had a net income from fees and commissions of $15,000, the county treasurer $23,000, and the county auditor over $50,000.

From the point of view of economy and efficiency it is better to pay all officers an adequate salary and to require that all fees, commissions, and interest on public money be returned to the county treasury.  It keeps the tax rate down and makes possible an increase of service.

The county office fees and commissions in North Carolina amount to something like one and a quarter million dollars a year, if they are collected according to law.  The total is large enough to pay all salaries in at least 58 counties of the state, and leave large balances to apply to schools, roads, jail expenses, interest, and sinking funds.  These large surpluses are being wasted in most of the salary counties. [Footnote:  E.C.  Branson, The Fee System in North Carolina, in the University of North Carolina Record, No. 159, October, 1918, p. 69.]

Such faulty business methods are gradually being corrected by the introduction of the short ballot, as in California and elsewhere, by businesslike methods of keeping accounts, by the appointment of county and state auditors, and by giving full publicity to reports of county business.

THE FAULT WITH THE CITIZEN

“But after all,” says the county official quoted above, “a great part of the shortcomings of county officials and a great deal of the looseness which prevails in the management of county affairs can be charged to the citizen people themselves.”  Another student of the situation says,