A change in the financial system whereby the surplus receipts of postoffices throughout the country are _promptly_ centralized at convenient points for the purpose _of meeting other postal expenditures incurred during the period in which the surplus receipts accrued_, thus paying the expenses of the service from current receipts and obviating the necessity of applying to the Treasury for a grant to meet an apparent deficiency in postal revenues _when, as has happened in many instances, no actual deficiency exists_. Now, that is certainly an “improvement” worthy of all commendation. If, as stated, it provides for “Meeting other postal expenditures incurred during the period in which the surplus receipts accrued” it certainly should prevent “an apparent deficiency … when … no actual deficiency exists.” But why, then, is it reported that over $7,000,000 of expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1910, are charged to the fiscal year 1911? The report bears date December 1st, 1911--_four months after the fiscal year 1911 closed_. If the receipts of postoffices throughout the country are “promptly centralized” for the purpose of meeting current expenditures, it would require super, if indeed not supple, expertness in accounting to figure out a surplus of $220,000 for a year’s business which assumes over seven millions in unpaid bills of a previous year without, apparently, knowing what amount of unpaid bills can be shunted onto the next year. But, it may be argued, there is nothing inconsistent in Mr. Hitchcock’s claim as just quoted, of an improvement in the department’s system or methods of accounting which makes, or _should_ make, unnecessary the carrying over to 1911 so large a sum for expenditures made in or an account of the year 1910. While the improved methods have been introduced, it may be argued that insufficient time has elapsed, even to December 1st, to admit of their application in making up the fiscal report for the year 1911. In short, that the improved methods were introduced so late in the fiscal year 1910 that the resulting betterments in the system of accounting could not be shown in the report for 1910-11. Yes, that possibly might be of some weight in considering this claimed improvement in the accounting methods of the department. There is, however, one serious objection to its acceptance as evidence in this case--evidence in proof that there was not sufficient time to make the improved methods operative in the showing for the fiscal year 1911: (5) The adoption of improved methods of accounting by which the surplus or deficiency in the postal revenues is approximately determined _within three weeks from the close of each quarter_, instead of three months thereafter, on the completion of the audit of postmasters’ accounts.