Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-04-21
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE Re-
PORT TO THE BOARD.
The Charges Made by the Grand Jury
substantiated-TheR Report Adopted
Other Proceedings.


whiteoak, to w. w. Wade.
The special committee appointed to investi-
gate the charges made by the late Grand
Jury against county officials made a report,
which is given in full:
To the Honorable Board Of Supervisors of
Sacramento County We, your committee
recently appointed to investigate the charges
made by the late Grand Jury against the old
Board of Supervisors and other county off.
GERS, report as follows:
First-That having done most of the work
ourselves, in order to avoid expense to the
county, and none Of the committee being
professional bookkeeparr, the investigation
has been necessarily slow in consequence of
the inexperisnce of the members in such
work.
Sscond-The committee has had a delicate
matter TO deal With, in that part of the off,
GERS whose official acts were to be subjected
to our investigation are members Of the pres
ent Board of Supervisors, and filling other
county positions, and it is but natural that
we should feel reluctance at the idea of posi-
bly, giving offense TO gentlemen with whom
we are officially and otherwise brought into
almost daily intercourse. We have, however,
realizing our responsibility and sppreciating
the deep interest the people of this county
feel in the matter, endeavored to do our duty
in the premises, and herewith append state
ment of facts as we find them, leaving all TO
judge of our work and draw their own con-
illusions /:
J. W. WILSON, RX-sUPERvIsoR.
We find that Mr.. Wilson drew $3.50 as
Chairman of the Board, without showing on
his demands that any extra services had been
rendered for the same when the Board was
IL oil fnr
barouche, carriage and buggy hire and horse
feed during his four years term as Supervisor
the sum of S4SS 80, as can be found by the
several demands on file, the same being
charged as for the use of the Board Of Super
visors.
P. R. BEoKLEY, EX-sUPERyIsoR.
We find that Mr.. Beckley drew the sum of
S657 80 as Chairman of the Board, without
showing on his demands that any extra SER
vices were rendered for the same when the
Board was not in session. We 6rd that he
also drew $40 on warrant No. l, SS7 (sllowed.
by the Board November 4, 1880, for
posting election proclamations and distribu-
ting registers and election blanks to different
precincts in the county, at the same time re-
ceiving his salary as Supervisor. We also
find that he draw $50 for distributing election
proclamstions on May 8, 1879 warrant No.
S16) at the same time drawing salary as SUI
pervisor. We also find that he drew $50 for
distributing election proclamations and cleo
ton blanks on warrant No. 1897, allowed
November 9, 1882. We also find Mr.. Beck
ley sold hay to the county and drew $50 on
warrants Nos. 1881 and %. allowed August
g. 1879, and January 8, 1879. respectively.
We also fed that he drew SS5 on warrant
No. 21S. allowed January q, 1881. for eight
and one-half days work for two men and
airrhf hnraaa TnlO IN tho roo6 Inoludiuer
So repairs to pillow. We also find that Mr..
Bsckley drew S45 70 on warrant No. 2,081,
allowed by the Board November %, 1882,
for expenses of the Board in visiting An
drus Island. He also drew S67 So on
warrant No. LAOS, allowed by the
Board July 6, 1881, for expenses of the
Board travelling thr ugh the county. We
find he charged and drew by warrant No.
1.190, allowed by the Board June 8, 1882, SIS
for cash paid the Executive Committee of
the Anti-Debris Association for printing, etc.,
and expense in going to San Francisco on
committee duty Of the Association. We also
fad be drew by warrant No. $50, allowed
February 70, 1881, the sum of So for tobacco
for the chain-gsng.
BENJAMIN BAILEY, SUPERVISOR.
Mr.. Bailey received S47 80 on warrant No.
100, allowed April %, 1879, for expenses of
the Board in visiting bridges. He also re.
ceived S25 on claim 5000, as per demand
book of Board of Supervisors, for distributing
election proclsmations.
JOHN F. DREMAE, Ex.suPERvIsoR.
We find that Mr.. brennan received, on war
rant No. 457, allowed by the Board Feb
ruary 20, 1881, the sum of S107 %. as
expenses of the Board to Walnut Grove
also Sc for hack hire, to view roads
warrsnt No. 1,406, allowed July 6, 1881;
also Sc, expenses to Hicks bridge, on war.
rant No. !, 81, allowed September s, 1881
also on warrant No. 562, allowed in April,
1882, the sum of S12, for expenses to San
Francisco.
NoTE In the matter Of The trip to Wal
nut Grove, for which Mr.. brennan drew
SI07 75 we find on investigation that the
presence of the Board was asked for by citi-
zsns of that place, and that, as there was no
way of reaching there by other conveyance
at that season of the year, the Board pro-
cured a small steamboat, employed pilot
and engineer, bought fuel for the trip and
paid for accommodations for members of the
Board while at Walnut Grove. The bill,
however, appears extravagant to this COM
mittee.
EDWARD oHRIsTY, SUPERVISOR.
We find that Mr.. Christy collected S235 20
in excess Of the amount allowed by law for
mileage, said mileage having been drawn
during the last four years. On warrant No.
/, $50, allowed September 4, 1879, MIR. Christy
drew $50 for posting election proclamations
and distributing tally lists. Warrant No.
S27, allowed May s, 1879 shows that he
drew IS for the delivery of election papers.
Mr.. Christy sold to the county pump for
$3.50, and collected S34 Sc interest on the
amount, as per warrant No. 137, allowed
j auusrY 6, 1882
NoTE Mr.. Christy. in explaining to the
committee in regard to the oVerdrawn mile.
age, said that it had been the custom of his
predecessors to draw mileage for % miles,
and he supposed it was right.
HICKS BRIDGES.
In regard to the repairs on the above
named bridges, we find the following on page
$50 of Book K, minutes of the Board of Su-
pervisors In the matter of repairs to the
Hicks br1dge-On motion of Supervisor Blair,
this matter was referred to the Committee on
Roads and Bridges and the Chairman, With
power to act" We do not find any record Of
any other proceeding, only the allowing of
the claims Of Messrs. earle & Croly, on war
rants Nos. 79l and 1903, for So 600 and
So, 322 respectively. Therefore we find that
the repairs to bs made were not advertised
for bids. and were done without following the
letter of the law. We will further state that,
according to the sworn aft iavits Of j. II.
Sawyer and S. A. Lswis, both respectable
and responsible men-they being also csrpen-
tiers and accustomed to doing such work-the
cost of the repairs ought not to have exceeded
81 600.
We have been unable to find any record
wherein thu repairs on the Live Oak bridge
we're made by order of the Board Of Super
visors, but we find that the claim of So, 172 10
for said work was allowed in the month of
November, 1880, and taken out of the gen.
eral fund, which is contrary to law.
The bridge on the lagoon. near Hicksville.
was repaired in November, 1882, st an ex-
pense Of 1920, without advertising for bids.
The cost of said repairs was taken out OF the
district funds of Road District No. 16. AL
though the work was done last year, and the
bill allowed in December. the warrant was
paid out of the funds collected for the use OF
the said district in the present year, which is