Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1885-05-07

To Hon. w. H. Handy, Judge of the Court OF
| Common Pleas of Henry County, Ohio:
| We, the undersigned committee appointed by
your predecessor, Hon. J. J. Moore, to investi-
gate and examine the above report, after having
carefully Investigated and examined the same
together with the bills, vouchers, ETC., would
| report that we find tho said report as to
amounts received and expended substantially
correct, and therefore we deem it unnecessary
to state in. the report of your committee the
| amount of the receipts and expenditures of the
different funds, and only direct attention to
specific expenditures out of the following funds:
DITCH FUND.
We find it is the custom of the Commissioners
to allow the petitioner for a county ditch and
other persons, fees for serving notice on land
owners of the pendency and prayer of the petit
ton, We find no authority in law for the allow
ance of such fees.
Section 4457 of the Revised Statutes makes it
the duty of the Auditor to prepare and deliver
to the petitioners, or any one of them, the re-
qured notices, copy OF which shall be served
upon each lot or land owner, etc. And Section
4506 Revised Statutes, enumerating fees to he
allowed under the ditch law nowhere mentions
fees for service of notice upon lot or land own
erS.
BRIDGE FUND.
We have not made calculations of amounts
expended from this fund in specific divisions of
work as masonry, superstructures, earth work,
tions of the connty, but have directed attention
to the extent and manner of the disbursement
of this fund, and from the fact that our county is
one so trayersed by streams, large and small,
natural and artificial, to require the outlay of
great deal of the peoples money in this way.
we have with considerable care, reviewed the
management of this fund, and have to report
that with perhaps n few exceptions to which
we do not care to direct special attention. the
fund has not been drawn upon for the construc-
ton or repairs OF more bridges than wise re-
gard for the public welfare would demand,
and we believe the Commissioners have been
actuated by a desire to expend this fund in
manner which in their Judgment would most
economically preserve the county's bridges and
subserve public interests in that regard, but
while so believing, we consider that one Of the
chief purposes of our appointment is that we
may report whether in the opinion of this COM
mittee the finances of the county have been col
lected and disbursed according to law, and that
we have nothing to do with Che expediency or
economy OF departures therefrom, we have to
report that this fund has not been disbursed ac-
cording to law. We refer to Sections 1885, 79S and
799 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, where 1t is
provided that in the erection or repair of bridges
the cost of which exceeds $l 600, the Commits
soners should advertise for proposals, and the
contract therefore shall be awarded to the low
est bidder, who shall give bonds, etc; and when
such cost will not exceed 81 600, the Commits
soners may, if they believe the public interest
will be best subserved thereby, cause such
tract without publication. In either case the
work is to be done by contract-in the one case
with publication for proposals. in the other with
out tiff thought best.
bridge, which Is special fund-the Commits
sioner's have purchased in general way and
without reference to any special work, materi-
ais for bridge purposes, as stone, lime sand, ce.
some or all paying freight, team work, storage
etc, for same as will be seen by the items ex-
pended, and had them put in bridges, culverts
and abutments by some sort of contracts or ar
rangements, of which your committee have
been able to learn but little, for the reason the
records ofthe Auditors office show nothing OH
the subject.
Section s7S Revised Statutes prescribes that
1T shall be essential to the. validity of every
contract entered into by the County Commits
sioner's or order made by them, that the same
has been assentedto at II regular or special scs-
sion thereof, and entered in the minutes by the
Auditor"
We are informed by Auditor Evers that no
contracts for bridge purpose have ever been en-
tered or filed in his office, except two with j.
Redman, nor no minute or memorandum
thereof and that he has no knowledge Of the
amounts to be paid for such cause other than
the certificate of the Commissioners, bro ught
to him by u claimant for the work, and that
upon such showing an order is issued to him on
the bridge fund.
the proper authority to change the manner Of
dsbursing public funds, and that it would be
better to respect the laws as they are anF dis
burse all moneys, MS near as may be in strict
accordance herewith, leaving the consequences
as to economy or expediency to the people
whose money is affected and who are RESPONSE
BILE for the laws
II is proper to say that such has been the hab-
1t of the Board of Commissioners for number
of years, and that the present board have but
followed the traditions of their predecessors in
that regard.
The Statute also provides that the expense of
all bridges costing less than s5O each shall be
borne by the respective townships. We find
that i'm some cases the Commissioners have built
bridges that should have been done y the
townships and, according to evidence before US
Lecially to small bridges across county bitches.
We would recommend uniformity on the sub
iect, and that on the side of the enforcement of
the Statute,
And further recommend that the Commission
ers and Auditor see TO 1t that all the require.
ments OF the law have been complied with be-
fore orders are issued on this or any other FUND.
The practice of treating such county work as an
Individual would treat his own, ana having IL