The whole charge, “On Account of Previous Years” in each report is treated as a charge against the _immediately preceding year_. It has been shown that payments on “account of previous years,” as given in the published reports, include for years other than the first or immediately preceding, amounts so small that they may be, for purposes of comparison, ignored.[8] At any rate, the figures in the following tabulations of expenditures and deficits--accepting the department’s published statements of receipts as correct--are far more enlightening to the general public as to the results of each year’s business, for the five years here covered, than are the statements made in the annual reports of the department for the years named. The second table shows the “deficits,” or balances for each of the five years as compared with the deficits shown in the annual reports of the department, the corrected figures being subject, of course, to any trifling reduction which may have resulted from the payment of bills carried into the account from some other than the immediately preceding year: ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF THE POSTOFFICE DEPARTMENT. Expenditures Expenditures as published. as corrected. 1907 $190,238,288.34 $190,758,907.43 1908 208,351,886.15 208,114,626.20 1909 221,004,102.89 227,204,092.31 1910 229,977,224.50 230,322,942.62 1911 237,648,926.68 230,516,814.45 From the foregoing it will be seen that the corrected figures show a range of variance from the published figures, of over $6,400,000. That is, the corrected figures are some $230,000 below for the year 1908 and more than $6,200,000 above for the year 1910, the showing in the departments published reports. A similar correction for the year 1911 cannot be made until the department chooses to enlighten the public as to the amount of 1910-11 unpaid bills it _has carried forward to become a charge against the receipts of the year 1911-12_. As the account for the year stands above, the surplus for the year 1910-11 is $7,363,009.15--not the comparatively trifling amount of $219,118.12, as published. Of course, if the report shows that 1912 pays $7,363,009.15 of 1911 expenditures, then the paltry surplus for the last-named year may stand as given in the report. But if the 1912 report should show that so much as _one dollar_ more of 1911’s unpaid bills were shunted onto 1912 than 1911 paid on account of 1910’s shunted bills ($7,132,112.23), then Mr. Hitchcock’s joy-producing “surplus” will vanish as an _actuality_ in correct accounting. Following is the showing of the deficits or balances as published, as compared with the _actual_ deficits or balances, as corrected according to previous explanation: