The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1884-04-30

f,nd that many warrants had Deen
issled without being receipted Tor OF
had been received by others than the
nayees thereof, and we foaSld no ORDERS
mon the files for the sama:s we Iefer
10 this because it is in violating OF ~. p
D. 400, sec. 396. Na
The cancellation of warrants fetufheu
by the treasurer to the commissioners
though doubtless having taken place az
annear re on the record of warrants, still
is not noted upon the minutes OF the
commissioners as required by II. >, P.
4S3, sec. 1862.
The books of the commissioners nave
not been as neatly or carefully Kept as
the amounts and interests involved
would call for. This is to be said par
ticularly 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 commissioners
meetings.. We think the proceedings or
the commissioners should be more Iuliy.
noted in this book, and that 1t snouid
be indexed. We noticed here a hiatus
from July 25, 1882, to January, 1883, PIP.
1913 to 800, during which period much
important business was transacted. we
were informed that the draft Of the min
utes during that period had been de
stroyed in IL court house fire of Janu-
ary. 1888; but it may be observed that
if the same had been entered lmmed-
| lately 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 nave
prepared therefrom a statement OF the
| county finances to the Goth of February,
1884. We have also included In the
same the warrants issued at the March
1884 session of the commissioners. we
have set this statement out in an add
tional report, to which we have append
ed such remarks as we considered APP
| plieable to the affairs of this office.
From this report it will be seen that the
actual net Indebtedness of the county
on March 1st, 1884, amounts to the sum
of $lO5, sol 80.
In regard to the records of the probate
court we found that the same for the
| period 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 thaHoffice for the period mentioned.
The business since January, 1888, has
| been light and the entries few.
We fob nd NO records pertaining to the
| public administrator, they being among
those dA royed. We were informed by
! the prebMe Judge that there have been
but three estates under his administra-
ton, that they were not yet settled, the
administrator not having made his final
| report, and that there was at present no
incumbent of this office.
AS to the recent toWnsite addition to
the town of Fort Benton, we have no
o.o <D .anIro for tho ronc> 4hnf fI,n
probate judge refused to allow us to X
anime the records relating TO the same.
La closing this report we do not think
it out of our province to observe that the
| care and attention which the execution
of a public trust requires have not, as a
| rule, been observed in the administra-
| ton of county affairs. Carelessness and
inattention to the salutary provisions of
the law are apparent upon the records
to a much larger extent thar would be
thought possible. Many of the irregu-
! ~larities that have been pointed out could
not have occurred it a livelier sense of
duty had been had on the part of the
| auditing officers of the county. Bills to
a large amount for which the county re-
ceived no adequate return have been
| paid, as witness the sum of $417.45 for
alterations in and rent of the basement
SCA Ny Ii oUa SooIl II Iooc3 1
for nine days only, but for which rent
was paid from March 1st to December
LIST. Fer this charge we found no con-
tract among the files of the commission |
ers, nor noticed on their records. We
think the sums of money expended for |
the care and maintenance Of the county
poor have been unnecessarily large for
a community such as this, and that if
the same had been let by contract to the
lowest responsible bidders greater econ
omy would have resulted. No such
contract appears to have been madesex-
cept in the year 1882, and even then
the contractor did not appear to have
the sole charge of the poor. Large sums
Of money have been expended on the
roads, but we were not able to find either
in the files or Of record that any attempt
had ever been made to let out the same |
to the lowest bidder, as required by law
in those cases where the cash exceeded |
the sum of 500. The maximum allow
ed by law for certain services, e. e., diet
ing prisoners in the county jail, print
ing, etc., has obtained as the price for |
the same, although such maximum is
VIGOROUSLY much in excess Of the usual |
cost for k eservices. Finally, we think
full reports of all officers required by
law to furnish the same should appear
among the files. With a few exceptions
they do not, and whether they were
ever made cannot be ascertained from !
the records.
In conclusion we may say that the
work done by ourselves has taken more
time than we had expected would be |
necessary, but in order to be thorough
we could not shorten the same. We
have %endeavored to overlook nothing.
regardless of whom it might touch. We