Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-06-14

what they were paying and what they pad it for, not 10 mention an incidental knowledge of the party or parties to whom it was paid
 Therefore, The board of school trus- tees are the responsible parties, and no alleged ignorance in any of the premises can relieve them of the burden.
 They knew the value of the lot was S5,OOO and they consented to pay some one S2j0 for brokerage and, confessedly believing this to be illegitImate. II not illegal. they cover up the transaction by inducing the parties selling. to confess to the receipt of sum that they did not receive, in order to shield themselves.
 Wherefore, We charge the board of school trustees with malfeasance Tn inc misappropriation of public moneys, com mitted to theIr charge and with attempt to conceal said malieasance. DO part Of the acts confessing their powers author izing them to pay intermediate parties for fcticious services, such as this ai- leyed broakerage, and We regret the fact that the operation of the statutes oi limitation will compel us to inactivity III this matter.
 We find that in October 1883, a so- called amended contract was signed by the architect and approved by the board of school trust tees, said SO called amended coniTLc- WIS not dated other wise than October lsS3, and was not signed by the contractor, although said contractor was ile party Of the first part in the instrument. Under the document the notifications in the build ing which have man;iestiy iuperri!ed its safety, were made.
 If this document has that force and validity which are not apparent m its face, 1T necessarily vitlates the surlties given by the contractor for the faithful performance of his engagements under the original contract, in that they are made ss parties to this so-called amended contract. nor have the! any re- corded cogniZauce of it's existence, If t does legally exist.
 If the document has no force or validity. or If it has force and validity, the county interest IS imperiled.
 Whereof we charge the board of school trustees with criminal negligence.
 lst.-In that they acted in contrayer- ton of the statute in making q contract for the building ot the new school building without exac;ing the sureties required by law from the contractor. Or, if the so-called amended contract has no legal status, then.
 We charge the board of school trustees with criminal negligence.
 2nd.-In that they allowed and per mItted and advised, and through them appointed and salaried architect, allowei, permitted and advised such alterations innovations in the original contract had with the contractor, as have imperIled the safety of the build ing and wasted the public money.
 We also find that the insurance on said building was made gt the rate Of two t2l per cent, when the book rate of such buildings in standard companies k not greater than 10 per cent. We fnl that sad insurance vas effected through the office of W. A. Scott, IT,, one of the school trustees, by him or with his knowledge and consent. Wherefore We charge the board of school trustees with malfe3sance n that they have willingly and with intent, misapproprlat7d the public funds by not taking due diligence and zeal m its ln- ttrsst
 In deierence to the public desire to know the present condition oi the build ing and the prospect for its safety, we beg to state ;has we have thoroughly investigated all matters connected with its construction. aId believe that only by a further expenditure of from four to fi-e thousand dollars can it Gc made safe, but by no means can lt be made the building tine countv should huve had for the money.
 We do not guarantee the figures given. not being sufficiently competent m the premises, We desire merely to convey the idea that We believe the building k not at sll beyond the hope of salvation.
 Resps sctfuliy submitted,
 F. \. FIsH, Gilman.
 SAMUEL llUGHEs,
 F. L WETNoRE,
 II. D. UNDERWOOD.
 D. 1. SANFORD.
 LEcPoLDO tEEElLLO.