FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 331 
to make annual financial reports to the State, and in most instances 
the figures were published by the State in comparative tables. At 
the same time there were 16 other States which required some form of 
financial report, the requirement usually being confined to county 
officials or to those handling State funds (127, p. 250). States which 
take particular pains to analyze and interpret the financial data which 
they assemble are New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio. 
It is evident that comparative tables are impossible unless the re- 
ports from which they are derived are comparable, and that the latter 
cannot be fully comparable unless there is uniformity in accounting. 
But the financial officers of most local units obtain their offices through 
popular election or political appointment and do not know even the 
rudiments of accounting. Hence it is impossible to install and main- 
tain a uniform system of accounts in all the counties or all the cities of 
a State without a great deal of tutelage by State agencies. Neverthe- 
less some progress has been made in this direction. 
At least three States—Indiana, New York, and Ohio—prescribe 
uniform municipal accounts, and in several others a State agency is 
authorized to devise uniform accounting systems and to aid in their 
installation. Mention has already been made of the headway made in 
installing uniform accounts in Massachustets. Among the other 
States which have supplemented statutory regulation of county or 
municipal accounting with administrative assistance are Iowa, Michi- 
gan, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 
Various agencies have been used by these States to carry on the 
work. In New York it is done through the State comptroller’s 
office, and in Indiana, by a State board of accounts. In lowa a 
county accounting department with broad supervisory powers was 
set up in 1913 in the State auditor’s office. A standard system of 
accounts has been developed and quite widely adopted. In Virginia 
several counties are using a uniform system devised and installed by 
the State auditor of public accounts. In North Carolina most of the 
counties are using, with a reasonable degree of faithfulness, a classi- 
fication and procedure devised by the county government advisory 
commission. Wisconsin has been working toward uniformity in its 
local accounts since 1911, under the direction of the State tax com- 
mission. West Virginia has had a uniform accounting act since 1909, 
and several years ago the State tax commissioner reported that ‘‘the 
system of uniform accounting has been so successful that where there 
was chaos before, there is now order, system, and efficiency” (145, 
iGO) )Je 
H Several States have carried supervision of local accounts to its 
final stage and have made provision for an audit of these accounts by 
State auditors. In some States the audits are made only occasionally, 
or upon invitation of the local authorities. In other States the ac- 
counts of all local officers are audited periodically. 
Ohio has had compulsory State auditing of local accounts since 
1902. According to a bulletin of the United States Chamber of 
Commerce (114, p. 10), these audits have resulted in the recovery by 
subordinate spending agencies of an average amount of $250,000 each 
year, which had been misspent. Large savings are also reported in 
Indiana, where local accounts are examined periodically by agents of 
the State board of accounts (167). The accounts of Louisiana par- 
ishes are examined semiannually by State auditors. In New York a 
