The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-12-15

By legislative appropriation Qoads)-- 1,oOO 90
sl88,786 10
This revenue has been expended in
various ways, but the chief beneficiary has
been:
ROAD ACCOUNT,
which has received appropriations as fol-
lows:
For year ending
June l, 1885 1924 81
June /, 1886 ----- 20,616 "a
June /, 1887 ------------------ 800 So
June l, 1889 -----------1 ISIS IS
Sll4,145 43
The records show that there were
NO BIDS RECEIVED FOR ROAD WORK.
In a few cases the county road super
visor or the county surveyor would ap-
prove bills presented, but these instances
are rare.
The several selectmen rendered numer-
GUS bills TO the court for services rendered
in viewing roads and bridges, but the
vouchers on which the foregoing large
amounts have been paid have very seldom
the written approval of any county official
who claimed to have personal knowledge
that the work charged for was actually
and properly done. Some of the bills give
items OF material used and labor expended,
but that does not prove that material was
used nor that the work named was actually
performed. We charge that the county
court was grossly culpable in its appropria
lions to road account, and in support of
that charge give copies of some vouchers
which it approved and paid.
On October l, 1884, A. Gardner, Of West
Jordan, writes the county court that he has
expended considerable time in the inter
N T c 10 dc or
which 1 have not received any compensa-
ton" He asked for 500 in payment for
such services; it was appropriated to him
the same day.
VOUCHER OF WILLIAM M'GHIE, JR-
August 8, 1sS6-For labor and material
expended on Big Cottonwood road 800 90
R. F. TURNBow
1, lSs7-Thirty- nine days work
with man and team, at S350------- 1876 50
May 3 1ss7-Fifty four and half days
work with man and team 100 80
D. PROCTOR.
September l, lSsS-For 400 ties. -------- 400 90
Many bills as indefinite as those given
above have been paid by the county court.
We also find that, in violation of law, E.
was an expensive contractor for
roadwork and material while a selectman.
SOME OF HIS BILLS RENDERED
are as follows:
June l, 1sS5-For ties, stringers, nails
and lumber s7SS 90
For thirty-two days on roads and mile
1928 90
July II, lSS5-For stringers ties and
August 4, 1S85-For ties and lumber Is 81
September 1Ss5-For services June to
date, fifty days-------------- $50 90
For mileage 70 90
October /, lSS5-For ties, stringers and
plank. northumberland 246 20
December l, 1SS5-For thirty days on
road 90 90
For mileage 60 80
December Z, lS55-On Sandy road 500 90
TEE ROAD ACCOUNT
is debited with large appropriations to
contingent road ACCOUNT which fund is
to be expended by some person named in
the appropriation. From October l, 1884,
to November /, 1886, these appropriations
were placed in the hands of Jesse w. Fox,
ir., then selectman. During those twenty
five months he so received for disburse-
ment the sum of $4,000. At irregular in
tervals he made reports of expenditures to
the county court, the minutes showing they
were duly approved.
Mr.. Fox, as custodian of this contingent
road account, seemed to usurp the func-
tons of the entire county court, approving
of work and paying bills at his pleasure,
the county court always approving his &C
ton. We know of no reason why the large
payments made by Mr.. Fox from this &C
count should not have been passed upon by
the entire court before payment was actu-
ally made.
Following are some
COPIES OF VOUCHERS
which Mr.. Fox paid and which the county
court afterwards approved:
In his report of September, 1856, he pays
r. F. Turnbow as follows:
Station 80" to ''35," Sugar House ward.
Il, 439 yards excavating, at 1Oc--s7l4.39
Z, 344.2 yards gravel cement, at 25c------ 5S6.05
2, al yards wagon work. 6l6.22
There were no bids.
Another voucher is as follows:
S1,O39.5O. SALT LAKE CITY,
Dec 10, 1855.
Received from Jesse w. Fox, jr., one
thousand and thirty nine and 50-10O dollars,
being amount in full for excavating, bridg-
ing and mending breaks on the drains in
Granger and Brighton precincts to date.
(Signed) r. F. TURNBow.
On August 4, 1885, John Q. Cannon, sec
rotary of the Jordan and Salt Lake Sur
plus Canal company, on behalf of the
officers and stockholders, represents to the
county court that the canal in question was
commenced to prevent the overflow of the
Jordan river to the injury of residents of
the county and city. He states that the
canal is an assured success, though then
unfinished. That the company is $1,000 in
debt, and asks the county court for aid
The petition has the following endorse
ment by the county court:
August 4, 1885. Filed.
April Z, 1886. Called up and laid over
September 6, 1886. Called up; petition
having been granted; ordered filed
Just how the petition was granted we
find by inspection of j. w. Fox, jr's, re-
port on contingent road account, filed Sep
TENDER G., 1886, which says:
March q, 1885, paid Jordan and Salt
Lake Surplus Canal company, 500.
April 10, 1886, paid the same company,
800.
June 10, 1886, paid the same company,
81, 400.
At the time Mr. Fox made these pay
ments he was a member of the county
court, which refused to make any appro-
priation, but when he made these payments
aggregating 81, 300 on his own authority,
the court approved it.
On December 6, 1856, the county court
made an
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
of 81, 500 to this canal company, conditioned
upon its making deed to the county and
city. This item of $1,000 is the only one
charged to the Surplus Canal company on
the ledger.
December 10, 1886, this canal company
makes deed of its entire property, right
of way, etc., to Salt Lake county and city.
In that deed it is recited that the cost of the
canal was S19, 200, and that the county and
city had each advanced S6,400, or Sl2, 800
jointly. The only condition of the deed is
that the present owners shall keep the
canal open and in good repair for the term
Of ten years from date of the deed. Them
habitants along the line of the canal have
the benefit of the waters flowing through it
while the city and county keep it in repair.