The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1885-08-12

cplfits IIuiucuIl. % ioi Us oSCcI
tained. very few, if any, of these ar
ticles were bought on the order o
the poor house physician, or uset
by his direction.
NEW BUILDING.
In 1888 the board of directors af
ter conferring with the county com
missioners, determined to erect a
new building for the use of the pau
pers. The plan and specification;
were drawn for a one story frame
building. The. directors advertised
the letting of the contract and or
the day specified received a number
of bids and the contract it tappears
was let to Peter Pritts. Afterwards,
the whole matter was reconsidered
by the board and without further
notice to the public they proceeded
to annul the former contract chan.
ged the plan to a two-story building
and put its erection into the hands
of Frank Launtz, the Steward as
sole manager or boss of the work
Mr.. Lanntz acting in this capacity
purchased and furnished the ma
terial. employed and directed the
workmen, kept their time and pre-
sented their accounts for payment.
Among the workmen employed or
the building were some if not all o.
the directors themselves, and they
were paid the same as others for the
work they did.
This entire transaction seems tC
have been ill-advised and the man.
ner of its consunmation contrary to
law. The act of 1874 says ''that il
" shall not be lawful for any direc-
4" tor of the poor = to be
4" concerned or personally interested
/" in any contract for furnishing sup
" plies for the maintenance of tn e
I" poor, or for the construction OF
I" improvement of property under
I" their control y
CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING.
Aside from the legal aspect OF
this matter it may not be out OF
place here to refer to the character
of the building ITSELF This commits
sion did not make an inspection but
in passing through the building its
general inferlority in points of mattel
ial, workmanship and durability was
forced upon their observation. The
presents a rough unfnish-
ed appearance the ceilings of some
of the rooms have sagged down sew
eral inches and door frames and
transoms have been forced out of
square by the giving away of the
structure. After the directors had
this work among them
selves, first elias. building in every
respect might in a great measur e
have atoned for the violation OF
authority, but when at cost of
nearly $4,000 to the county they
present an inferior structure, their
action becomes little less than Grim
inal.
WORK DONE AND SUPPLIES FURNISHED.
Some little work has been done at
the Poor House in other years by
some of the directors, for which they
have been regularly paid. but, al
though in violation of law. and in
some instances known to be so, it
amounts to SO little that it is scarce
" worth mentioning.
1t has also been found. and in
most cases is a mattor of record.
that supplies have to limited ex-
tent, been furnished the Poor House
by directors and their employees in
each of the years gone over. In a
few instances, articles have been ex-
changed at and purchased from the
Poor House by directors. In one
Or two cases articles have been fur
nished by officials and an order for
The same made out in the name of
some one else.
In nearly all the foregoing trans
actions the Poor House officials, it
is claimed, were ignorant of the ex
stence of any prohibitory statutes,
which in the main is believed to be
rue, yet. it is extremely difficult to
some of these transactions
with such presumption. But if
during all these years sll these
things have been done in entire ig-
norsnce of the law in the premises,
hen that fact'is a serious reflection
lpon the legal advisers they had
hired from year to year. 1t was
clearly the duty of their paid attor-
1eys to give them the counsel and
advice they so much stood in need
If. 1t may be further stated upon
he authority of some of the direc-
.ors, that they did certain things and
paid certain bills under protest and
against their own Judgment, at the
Instance. and upon the advice of
heir counsel. Under circumstan-
,es like these the directors of the
Door should not perhaps be held to
90 strict an accountability.
EXTRA PAY.
In the matter of extra pay there
Ilso have been serious abuses. Large
ums Of money have been taken
rom the treasury annually and paid
,ut for EXTRA" labor without war
ant of law. The act of 1868 says the
fees of directors shall be fifty dol
ars per annum for each director"
,ut makes no provision for any ex-
ra fees. But the custom has been
or each director to charge extra at
he rate OF two dollars for every
lay employed other than at the
egnlar meetings of the board on
he first of each month. 1t win
eadily be seen to what exceses such
custom sanctioned by long usage,
s almost certain to lead. A princi-
lie that permits those holding posi-
ions oftrust TO make their own time
nd fix their own pay, cannot but
,e regared as contrary to sound poll
y. That the practice has led to its
Iatural results will be seen by the
tatements TO follow. Nor has il
,een confined tn the directors alone