Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-06-14

 an individual contract was made for it's construction for the sum of SyOO to which Sl00 for an extra coat of pant was afterwards added.
 The presumption is, that when con tract is made with the county, it IS to be settled in script. In this instance We cannot find that any understanding was had to the contrary, and yet payment was made in coin.
 Mir. W. L. Vail, one of the members of the board declined to vote upon the payment of this account, claiming tEGt he did not understand that It was 10 be paid in cash.
 We find that the Quiit toa road has cost the county from Iis inception to the present, as follows:
 TFoR FIGURES SEE GENERAL REPORT.
 Your road committee should compare these figure with the road-making etc, represented. This we have not done ourselves and cannot therefore pass upon the matter.
 In the proceedings of the board Ot February I, 1881. We find that MT. Sama' niugO was appointed committee ito superintsnd improvements on pubic highways. from southern limits of Tue son to Silver Lake and Robes Pass, and also Q committee to have erected picket fence around the courthouse. (Exhit D.
 From this We argue that a disposition has been shown on the part Ot the board e. throw the bulk of the work Cu Super- visor SamanlegO.
 Everything seems to have been left to bis discretion.
 We present the facts n this matter and reserve comment.
 We ind that a number of implements and utensils were incidentally charged to the QuIiotoa road or it's segregatiOHs, and presume that some of these still re- main for the use of the county, although We have found no record of them.
 In this connection We would suggest that some official perform the duties ot property clerk for the county anu keep the run at least of purloniable assets.
 We find that the poll-tax collected in 'S3 does not net the county more than S6OO.
 It seems ridiculous, that out of po- pulation of some 1S,OOO souls. only this small amount k collected.
 There should be some reform in the method of collection. or little more energy displayed therein.
 When the old law was in force which denied citizens the privilege of voting until they settled with the county for the only tax the majority Of them ever paid directly, the collections were larger, and We do not kLow but what tbe rtsur- Fecti1n Of thi- law would be beneficial As it is now, the taxpayers, properly sO- called, pay all the taxes, and the voters -specia.ly s1-caliei-pay nothing and take the lead m directing public affairs.
 Certainly, the old law, worked a hard ship Gu c. candidates for office. In that, it compelled them 10 pay the floating voters poil-tax before he go. his vote. Pursuing tEe poil-tax question: We iinI that the clerk of Tho board Cf supervisors, by order, IS in the habit ot deducting poll-tax from certificates agaInst the county.
 Although this action ostensibly inures to the county's benefit, it leaves too much freedom for the opera ton Of conscieut.ousness tO commend itself to us. It Is an injustice Co those that pay, and au assumption Oi the duties oI an official who is directed tO attend tO this matter. Moreover, tue payment of poll tax to the clerk of the board of supervisors does not entail receipt, manifest injustice even to an involuntary tax payer.
 Sec. lS 2lGl of the statutes. directs that "when any member of tine board Is pecIniarIly interested in any question before them the probate judge shall act ir his place" NIT. \. b. Otis, as chairman Cf the board of supervisors. has audited the account of the firm Of which he is the managing member.
 We also Eld tLa. AIr. Otis, aforesaid, is upon the tTeasurers b0Ed. and tLe records oi the board show that the mem bers thereof rEve requested Linn Co rc tIrc tlcr- from. We fiLd uo definite action recorded.
 According to law. .3a3 sec. 2j P. 6yJ each supervisor shall tc allowed com peusstiou of <J per day for h.s services WhIic il actual attendance Lt tLs fit- tings cf said board, upon the tu-iness Of the county
 provided ,be to.a! Der diem Of each supervisor shall Lot exceed tte -un ut $50 for au! enc scar.
 We find that tle following amCUu.s were drawn by them, from January ], 1883, Co b. lcembgr 3g, lNSj, !hgj k, from the first session Go the last in ;Lst c-s: \. D. Oti-. Siiu. being SgO iH excess .s maximIn amount allowed hy law; G.. Samanie-u, Stgu. being SID ID eZce-- ai mamimim amouu; allowed by law: J. II. IoOlt, Si5j, being SD iu 'xc ss c. mlximim amount allowed uy law.
 It is sell evident that one Cf the ob- jects for which thls provision of the l.w was enacted was to prevent a superilGent of meetLCs.
 ReyieB ing the minutes we find p-o- cseiings recorded as follows: January l3. February 4, March ,, April l2, May 10. June J, .Iuly :, August s Sg ptcmb-r l, Octobe' :, Novemb l, pecsm mb5r ,. Total 1J meetings aud l9 meetings as board of equalization.
 On July IOth, l>-3, the board ordered that the board having been IH -c-s.On on the lU, II, F. l3 and l6.h, days Of April III considering business oi the county. on applications for assist | auCe in public enterprises, and TO minutes there.f have been made iu tue journal Ol proceedings of the board Ordered that the clerk be instructed Co nuke an entry Cf record thereof
 As an actual fact thc supervisors l charged the county for these meetings l as follows. J, Ei. 4uu4t. t Ad!s; a. l. ] Otis, dave; VI. SaUgnieg1. days; or | in other words. while they originally 1 claimed for five days back pay. they | orly charged the c1u.ty for four @ r,- ] msrkGll- instance Cf c1nscie.tioGSles l or carclessuess.
 Incidentally ve inquire wLy the pro | bate judge audited these trer4raftS. and has clTel6ssuess been as character 1 istic with him ls with others.
 We here refer t0 an act of the ll,h | legislature. page sl. sec. D.
 Sec. ,. Every officer, including each . supervisor, who shall draw au uuauthor- ! ized warrant, or approve, allow or pay | any illegal or unauthorized warrant, ! claim or demand upon any county treas ury in this territory, contrary Co or with out the authority of law. shall be liable l 4. sEs d. rrufr- r,- t1a ~rw,wuA sI-r= f1f