The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1878-03-14
REPORT OF EXAMINING COM.
NIITTEE.

MITTEE.
mo the Hon. the Judge of the Court of Com
mon Pleas within and for the County OF
Portage and State of Ohio:
The undersigned. the Prosecuting Attorney
Of said County and the others appointed by your
Honor at the January ~ term OF sa,d A. a.
committee or commission to examine the An
nasl Report Of the Of saa
1871 which report was duly fled the 6th day
of September. A. d 1871. have the honor to res
1st That said Report is not in all respects.
such detailed report rs. in. our opinion. Is
2d we have examined In detail all matters
composing the items of disbursements rs given
proper, except MS to items ehereinaiter specific
ally set forth, that vouchers were duly taken,
and that they aggregate the amounts set forth in
3rd " lind in a few instances small accounts
against the County, which by law are payable
in fact paid before the Commissioners passed
upon the same. These accounts are lnsigntA-
cant in and to s IN arsrs
on the Treasury by the Auditor therefor rem
dc fred that oilicer individually liable to a re-
payment TO the County in case the Commission
crs disallOwed the accounts, SO that In no event
would the County have suffered loss, but that
manner OF pay ment is not legal and would per-
haps tend to the allowance by the Commission
ers Of claims that they might otherwise reject
4sh Under the law the Commissioners are to
furnish the different Offices with all necessary
| stationery. The practice has been to pay nc
counts on the simple certificates Of the dinerrnt
officers: that the bills "are correct" We think
they ought to require the certificates Of the Off
GERS that the supplies were necessary and actu-
ally furnished.
9Th. We find that the General Bridge work
has been obtained at largely reduced prices rs
compared with former years. and the aggregate
SaRs"'''"'0 Satf. ie'"0'' ''0'" '"'''"''' ~ '"'-
9th. We find that the expenditures for the
Kent Bridge have exceeded the special levy
for that purpose. the excess hvving been paid
| from the geneeal briigc fund The amount
| aIlount of thc special lcvy) was paid for work
not covered by the contract and which was not
and could not have been anticipated. but as 1t
developed had to be performed and paid Tor:
speaking, we deem it of suf1icient pnblic inter
| est to state the cost of the :" Kent Bridge" We
| find there has been expended by the County
| therefor the sum of $3.50 81. which. with the
for the collection Of the above amount. covers
| the total expense Of said bridge to the county
| at large. As near as we can ascertain. the vii
lage of Kent will have to pay about $10J w. s.
that the actual total al cost @ Of Of the Kent Bridge
| Sth As to the itemizing of the Commission
| ers' Report. we suggest the propricty Of detail
| ing as follows:
Receipts.
As to the items of receipts susceptible Of be
ing detailed. they are In nearly all cases found
ell upon the item:zed reports OF the other count.
need not in our opinion be reported item b.
item by the Commissioners
! Expenditures.
1st. The bridge fund aeeaan. should shov
Of work done. where done. and the amount OK
pended in each place. 5fzs =
and. The account Of tho Commissioners shoul