The Benton weekly record., 1884-04-26

such accounts void. We have set these
items out In Exhibit {.
In our research we have found of record
and have noted cases where the law pro-
hibiting county officials from in any man
ner dealing in county warrants had been
violated. r.. S. PIP. 500 and 6OO.) This
evil seems to be on the Increase, and is
doubtless the fruitful source of much Of the
general discomfort. It will Of course be
understood that the instances appearing
on the records can be but a small proportion
of the practice at large.
In the years 1S80-sl aud 1882, we found
that many warrants had been issued with
out being receipted for, or had been re-
ceived by others than the payees thereof,
and we found no orders among the files for
the same. We refer to this because it is in
violation of r. 5. p. 400, sec. 1886.
The cancellation of warrants returned
by the treasurer TO the commissioners
though doubtless having taken place as
appears on the record OF warrants, still is
not noted upon the minutes Of the
commissioners as required by +. S., p.
463, sec 1862.
The books of the commissioners have
not been as neatly or carefully kept as the
amounts and interests involved would call
for. This is to be said particularly of the
record of warrants, a most important book,
AS it contains the register of all warrants
issued and also of the minutes Of the com
missioners' meetings. We think the pro-
ceedings of the commissioners should be
more fully noted in this book, and that it
should be indexed. We notice here a
hiatus from July 25, 1882. tdJanuary,
1883, p. 233 to 800, during which period
much important business was transacted.
We were informed that the draft of the
minutes during that period had been de-
stroyed in our court house fire of January
1888; but it may be observed that if the
same had been entered Immediately after
the business was transacted, they would
have been saved with the book itself.
We have carefully gone through the
books Of the county treasurer and have
prepared therefrom a statement Of the
county finances to the 29th of February,
1884. We have also included in the same
the warrants issued at the March 1854
session of the commissioners. We have
set this statement out in an additional re-
port, to which We have appended such re-
marks as We considered applicable to the
affairs of this office. From this report it
will be seen that the actual net indebted
ness of the county or March 1st, 1884,
amounts to the sum Of $lO5, ,60l.S2.
In regard to the records Of the probate
court we found that the same for the per-
iod 1880 to 1883 were missing. We were
informed by the probate judge that they
had been destroyed in the court house fire.
The records missing include the probate, |
civil and criminal business Of that Office
tor the period mentioned. The business
since January, 1853, has been slight and
the entries few.
We found no records pertaining 10 the |
public administrator, they being among |
those destroyed. We were informed by |
the probate judge that there have been but |
three estates under his administration,
that they were not yet settled, the admin
istrator not having made his final report,
and that there was at present 10 incumb-
ant Of this office.
AS 10 the recent toWnsite addition to the
town Of Fort Benton, we have no repor;
10 make for the reason that the probate
Judge refused to allow Us to examine the
records relating to the same.
In closing this report we DO not think it
)ut Of our province to observe that the care
md attention which the execution OF a
public trust requires have not, as rule,
been observed in the administration of
county affairs. Carelessness and inatten-
ion to the salutary provisions of the law
are apparent upon the records to a much
anger extent than would be thought pos
ble. Many Of the irregularities that we
lave pointed out could not have occurred
liveler sense of duty mad been had on
The part of the auditing officers of the
,ounty. Bills to large amont for which
he county received no adequate return
nave been paid, as witness the sum of
All. .45 tor alterations in and rent of the
basement used by the district court in
April, 1888, for nine days only, but for
which rent was paid from March Is, to
December 1st. For this charge we found .
10 contract among the files of the COM
nissioners, nor noticed on their records.
Ne think the sums OF money expended for
he care and maintenance Of the county ;
oor have been unnecessarily large for ;
ommunity such as this, and that if the
anne had been let by contract to the low /