Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-08-12
Report Of Investigating Committee,
Appointed by the Court of Common Pleas,
to Investigate the Wood County Commits
sioners' Report for the Year ending Sep
tember 6, 1869.
To he Honorable Court of Common Pleas, Wood
County, Ohio;
(coSTISUED FROM LAST WEEK.
COUNTY BUILDINGS

COUNTY BUILDINGS.
Wednesday, Feb. 2, 1870, cammissicn met
and proceeded to examine county building fund
and proceedings Of commissioners in relation to
same. On examination Of the building contract
for Jail we find It dated May l8, 1869, and pre-
slme IL to have been ma 70 under the law Of
April 27, 1869, which law took effect on its pas
stge. Sec. of the law above referred to re-
quires that 'public notice in at least two of the
newspapers of the county of the time, place,
when and where sealed proposals will be re-
ceIved, shalt be published weekly six conseeu-
tive weeks next preceding the day named for
the making Of such Contract" In examining
said contract and commissioners journal we find:
lst. The commissioners g. ordered that auditor
advertise for four consecutive weeks in both
county papers inviting scaled proposals" ID. At
tached to the contract we find the printed notice
ordered by commissioners which eVi ently was
only published four weeks. This same act Of
April 27, 1869, sec. 10 provides that such con.
tracts shall not be binding upon any county un.
til they are submitted to the prosecuting att0r-
ney of such county and by him fonnd to be in
accordance with the provisions Of this act and
his certificate to that effect endnrsed thereon.
We hnd this part or section Of tile law was not
complied with. There is no endorsement on the
contract or other evidence 10 show that the pros
attorney ever was consulted in the matter. Hence
we consider the contract Invalid. Sec. 8 Of said
act or law prov ides that the plans drawings and
specifications shall be submitted to the c0mmis-
| sinners, clerk of the court, sheriff and probate
Judge for their appOveal and IN section lj there
is a provision that any county commissioner or
! persOn employed by them whose duty Il Is to
superintend, &c, who shall in the performance
| Of The duty herein imp0sod upon him or them,
| knowingly permit the work to be done in amy
| other mode or manner than as prescribed in such
| plans description and specifications unless the
same shall be dOne with the approval aud con.
sent Of the officers TO whom. under the prOvis.
ions Of section Of this act, the plans, &C. were
| submitted for approval, or with material different
! frum that required by such bills OF material
"shall BE- deemed and held gnilty Of a misde-
meanor and upon conviction thereof shall be
fined 6c." We find the commissioners did make
changes IN the speeiicalionsand contract but
do not find that any olhcer other than themsel yes
were ever consulted in tho matter.
We fnd there is no bond on file as required by
section Z nor is there any evidence on record OF
elsewhere that We can fnd that there ever was a
bond given to secure the contract for same. The
auditor sa VS. lie dOes not know OF any and there
| is none on file in his Offce. The commissioners
Journal, book N, page 6l, speaks Of bond hav,
ing been filed with the bids, but the auditor car
not find the bids, aud the probability is that if q
bond was filed with the bid II has not been ap
proved by the commissioners. as there Is no re-
cord of same. At the special session referred Il
as in book N, page 81, the heading says, "pres
ent-S. w. ST. John and John Yeager, eommis
sioners and j. Newton, auditor" Mr.. Yea
ger testi6es that he was not at said meeting, aud
did not then and does not now sanction the giving
Of said contract, referred to in said journal u
MessIs. BoughtOn and Thurstin. Again the
said jnurnal is only signed by s. w. st. John
aud atlested by j. b. Newton. The contract u
not recorded and is not referred to in the journal
See. 10 Of the law Of April 81, 1869, vol. 60