Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-08-05

part fatally So, and we d. MT regard the cura-
tive act 1868 as curing their defects. tits ev-
ident that no care Whatever has been taken to
protect the interests Of the county by the presen.
commissioners ia their behalf. They seem t0
have taken pains to disregard the law and jeo-
pradize the financial interests Of the county to
an alarming extent.
Our conclusion of the matter is that tho pro-
ceedngs in roads l6 AMI IS purpnrting To have
been commenced under the act ot 1884, were in
fact proceedings that should have been governed
entirely by the county ro16 law. part of the
time they act under onc law and part of the time
under the other. We deem the proceedings to-
tally worthless ON all these improved roads, and
especially those Of / 9 aud Is, aud the bonds is
sued there under, in our Judgement, are only
good as strictly against our county and not as
against the landowners along the line Of said
road. The county takes great risks by these
blunders, no less Than the risk Of the payn ent
Of all these bonds based upon worthless proceed
ings. Something should be done TO cur, ect their
proceedings in future, so that they may comply
with the law.
Petitions should be required to have all their
proceedings pat in legal form and to produce le-
gal evidence of the sana. IL is no part Of the
duty of the county auditor to get up their papers
for them.
COUNTY BRIDGES.
We find that the commissioner. Of Wood coun-
three districts for bridge purposes; each com
missioner has district over the affairs of which
touching bridges he reigns supreme. He can
determine the necessity Of a bridge any where
in his district; can saw, without consulting the
board, what material to use, make his own spec
ifcati0nS, let it at whatever price he pleases and
u whom he may see ht, and entirely upon his
own motion or responsibility and judgement
No written contract is made with the contract
no mtn1randnm IS filed in the auditors office,
and n journal entry Gf any kind whatever is
made Of it; the whole thing including kind price
and m1teral exists only in the memory Of the
commissioner and contractor, unless it be short
minute Of the same in the commissioners mem-
orandunPbnok which is liable to be lost at any
time. We do not consider this proper, safe or
legal manner OF doing this class Of the cDunty's
business. Whenever bridge is said 10 be
needed in the county the full bOari of commits
soners should pass upon the same asd order its
construction At a price not exceeding a maximum
limit set by them, the mIterial OF which, precis
place where and dimensions Of the structure 10
be erected should be mtdel al matter of record
Bids should be received, and when the Job il
let written contract therefor should be made
containing all necessary specifications. As we
Ind matters now, the auditors Office shows no
evidence o: any contracts, specifications or nnv-
thing touching any Of the bridges during The
Last or To b. erected during the PRESENT year.
There are ~ written contracts made whatever
All things touching the entire expenditure exists
in the memory OF one Of the mmissiDncrs aud
the contractor up to the tim. Of the drawing of
the order for the pay for the same The sinqIs
commissioner decides that the bridge is neces-
slry, gets it built, when, how and OF what he
peases. and at what cost he feels disposed TO
pay, and draw on the bridge fund for any amount
needed tD paw for the work of the e1ntrac:or
No taxpayer can review his act because there
Is nothing showing any evidence Of the matter
on record or fife.
Tie expenditure for bridge purposes IS S.
706 0j Where or when or how This vas ex-
pended We can only tell by hertsay. We learn
however, that many of the structures accepted
as bridges are miserable afftirs. badly built.
from very poor material and at very much tno
great expense. As an instance we give the
bridge over Sugar Greek, lately built by samuel
Clymer at abIut three tunes its necessary st
and in most unworkmlnlike m inner. 1t should
never have been accepted or paid for. II is al
ready lettering and ready to fall. We under
stand there are others in the same fix through
ont the county, but of the above bridge we have
peronal knowledge and here give it as an in-
stance tending to show that we are correct in our
statements. Whether the amounts reported as
expended on bridges have been expended prom
erly or Improperly, we can only tell by our per-
sonal knowledge Of the structures. We have
NJ evidence of record before us in regard to the
same, nor is there anything on record or filed in
the auditors office or elsewhere giving Us any
light in the matter from which 10 form any opin-
ipl or base any report. There appears to be,
from the commissioners report, only q bridges
now under contract. The aggregate cost Of
which Is s2.lj0 or therelbouts We suggest
that the commissioners be ordered b, the court
to make out a statement Of the apparent nece =
sty and site Of said bridges, the specifications
therefor and kint OF material Of which to be con-
structed, the contract price, when the same is
tp be completed and the name OF the the con-
tractor, and that said statement be flied in the
auditors Office within a time tO be named BY the
court. Aud that hereafter a record be kept a
20 all bridges let in the future by the commits.
soners. Aud that all contracts made for the
erection thereof be In writing and signed by the
contractor and at least two Of the comn ssioners
and filed in the auditors ofi e within FIVE days
after being made. Or, IN case the reccnmenda-
tipn should not meet the npprO 1atiun of the court
that some other course be taken by which record
evidence may be kept Of the erection, cost, &c ,
Of the bridges Of " ood county.
1t seems TO Us that although one commss ion
er may go out and view the bridge proposed and
report tn the bnard, get in the determinni ion of
all matters Of mitsridl, cost, contract, &c the
entire board should act. And in eases where
the board deem it expedent or Necessary, a bond
should be required of the contractor or lowest
bidder for the faithful performances Of the work
that they will get good substantial work for their
Hl'uSgs W H1pe pFiliHlL acllon VIII De taken
BY the court ia this matter as it is one Ut the
highest importance to our county.
DITCHEs.
During the year ending September 6, 1859, the
commissioners report that 2S bitches have been
established by them. We have drawn fIom the
ditch papers un file promscuously, aud the pa
pers in ditch No. 1874 comes first To hand, aud
we have examined tas an average example oi
the proceedings in ditch matters during the year
The petition shows that 5. w. st. John Is the
principle petitioner and in fact the only petition.
er for this ditch and that he is principal bonds
man is shown by the bond We further find, on
the examination of the records OF this ditch, that
>. w. ST. John 1.-THE Petitioner and bOndsman
with Walter Davidson were the only CON
present and acting upon said petition aud bond
and the proceedings hereunder. No OtbeE.csm,
missioner being present at the hearing thereof
Alr. ST. John, by reason OF his being interested
as petitioner and bondsnan, was disquali
he'd from acting this OF course leaves only one
commissioner acting who was authorized tn heal
the same. We further hnd that this ditch was
acted upon at a special sessisn aud not regular
meeting, Dir. st. John and Mr. Davidson being
pres mt an acting as such board There ia nu
proof that Mr.. Russell was Motif ID Of this specia
NEE ing or knew anything OF it. Ii then this
b)ard speaks only by its records, who can say
that Mr.. Russell was eOgnilant of the holding oil
This special Session and was not kept purposely
Ignorant OF the same. There should be some
thing il seems to us, showing that the entire
board was notified of the time of holding this
special meeting In order to render any act of the
two members -aid. We understand that such
is the law, and hence notice the fact in the re-
mort. IL furthel appears to us that Mr.. Russell
the third Commissioner, for some time before aud
after ths special session and the action taken
upon this ditch was not present or acting on the
board had nothing to do with their deliberations
findings or orders, and MS matter of fact, we
further find that he afterwards signed the re-
Cords and journal Of the meetings Of which he
was absent 5 though he were present. Signing
not at the time Of the session, and in fact not be-
ing present at or eOgnizant Of the repudatiOns
or evidences produced bsfore or proceedings had
by his brother commissioners. This seems 10
be the facts from inspection Of the records. We
cannot see how his subsequent signing can le-
galize an act done BY one of the other eommis-
sioners alone setting as the board, as in case OF
ditch l3l. We do not regard this subsequent
signing as covering up or curing tue defect