The Phoenix herald., 1879-11-07
GRAaD JURY REPORT.

After limited but careful exam
 ination of the records and papers ot
 the Board of Supervisors, and tn.
 testim ny of witnesses. we present
 for your consideration the following
 facts:
 Regarding the road fund, and the
 r.anrer in which said fund has been
 handled, we find that since Januar,
 ]. 1878, the sum of about $500 has
 been expended and warrants hay, been drawn against the fund of Dis
 trict No. l, which fund has been
 overdrawn to the amount If S1, 200
 for $400 Of which amount NC can
 find no vouchers In our opinion this ovei drawal against this fund is
 illegal, and should and must cease and be condemned. Testimony shows that the Road Overseer has put in his own team, and employed, for many days, man whom the Canal companies refused to employ at any
 price. and has charged the County six dollars per day for his team and this mans services.
 That a contract was given A. Hop. kins to make repairs on the road. for which he was paid fifty dollars, and that he filled contract in two days with two teams and two men, and that the actual value of the service rendered the county amounts to six teen dollars. loss to the county of iEirty-four dollars. We find that the Road Overseer gave the above con
 tract, accepted the services, and cer- tified 10 bill for the amount, and we also find that the work had to be performed over, by reason of the poor job done by the contractor. In the report Of the Road Overseer of District No. l, July :. 1879, the Over seer is indebted to Inc County in the sum of S29.S5. This report does not appear on the records as being ac- cepted or rejected, nor does it ap- pear that the Oversccr ever accounted to the County for the above-men- tioncd amount, although the Over sccr's next report or bill against the claims balance of ten dol
 lars due him on the settlement of July 12, same year.
 The records are in such utter con- fusion that we cannot explain the above transaction, or do we believe that the parties interested can en- tighten us on the subject. In our opin ion there is crookedness in this affair that demands the careful attention of the Grand Jury, if they have time 10 attend to it. IL is impossible to fully understand the Road Overseer's semi annual report, as it is not ex- pIicit, and does not come up to the requirements of the law. We find that the bills certified to by the Road Overseer do not explain where work has been done. In fact, there seems 10 be carelessncss in the commend that it would be far better and cheaper for the County to build bridges across the di ches on the principal thoroughfares, than it would have been to keep up cross ings.
 We find that the county has been charged most cxorbitant prices for :. printing For printing one thousand road tax receipts, the County paid ! < Mir. Shaw sixteen dollars, although l they were b, und in a very crude manner. The same, well bound, could have been purchased in San Francisco Ior six dollars-a loss to Inc County of len dollars on this job. The aboyc is evidence of desire and practice, which we condemn, of keep ing up job-of1iccs in Arizona at the expense of the tax payers. There are numerous other instances where the County has been over-chargcd by her advocates of reform.
 - We find that the clerk of the Board Of Supervisors has, in numerous in stances duplicated the number of warrants. one case we will mention, to wit: Road warrant No. fl, May ,, 1879, in favor of I. II. Cox, for $3O; and No. 4. June 3, 1879, in favor of Bellyea- We find that mutilation of the stubs and records occur frequently. Stubs have been torn out of different I warrant books, without leaving any trace Of the cause for so doing That he has cut ont of the ledger 7 pages No IT; No. ITS; No. 179 and ( No, 1sO. He has pasted together f pages 176 and 19f., thus concealing l ..fr --iiillstss;s ilati0ns= This practice of | the records of the county, V cannot be too strongly condemned a and should not be counicnanced r These muiilations seem to be with 2, out excuse and criminal Q That oae Arthur Rodgers present. ed a bill fer s1o which was Gisallow- C cd, yet the Clerks minutes of the \ Board, show that the same was al Q lowed and that warrant was issued s which is now held by an innocent s; purchaser ., ., That it is tle practice of the Clerk 2 2 10 cover two or more vouchers with e one warrant. This economy of labor e e sFc condemn. We believe and rec e ommend that every warrant should tc represent one vouct CT and no more, u md that every voucher should be as tt explicit as possible. u, U,