Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1893-03-23

TO be reported. We have examined witnesses
on matters where we could not satisfy ourselves
as to the manner OF the transaction Of business
and have throughly investigated every item on
which any doubt or question could be raised.
We find the business OF the county transacted In
a good and business like manner upon the
whole but for the benefit Of the taxpayers and As
guide for the future corduct of the financial
affairs Of the county will call special attention to
a few items on which in as much your com
mittee cannot agree, we shall not censure the
commissioners for their course or their failure TO
agree thereon,
We find bills of August Hirseland, janitor of
the court house and sherfs residence allowed
in amounts though small yet We think not right.
He was paid small sums for whitewashing,
vanishing and carpentering about GOiyt house
and while il may not have been part OF his duty
to do such work yet he should not be paid for
his time as janitOr and argin at the same
time carpenter This however il remedied
by new contract wits said janitor whereby he
shall receive no other allowances for work ex-
| cept his salary.
| nesses on the claim of Geo. Jeakles for raising
| and repairing the Texas ferry-boat and while the
| items ofexpense, accounted for by Mr.. Jeakle to
| the committee were very unsatisfactory yet we
are Of opinion that the bill is correct. The only
item doubtful was the charge of So 90 for board
of hands which while it seems large was UNI
doubtedly paid by Mr.. Jeakle.
We find that the auditors bills are not item
lied as required by law but are made in gross or
| lump and in such a manner as TO avoid detection
of illegal charges, which we find in nearly every
/
vised Statutes reads as follows:
| 'All claims for services of the county auditors
| which are payable from the county treasury,
shall be made out in dea II according to the rates
| Iamed in the foregoing sections and snail be
presented 10 the county commissioners, who at
| ter being sal istied the labor has been performed
| shall allow said bill or claiuI and cause the same
| TO be spread unn the minutes of their board;
| and after being 80 allowed the county auditor is
| authorized TO draw MS warrant upon the treas
| urer OF the county for the amount of the bill or
| alain allowed" p" No find fhat no
has the abUvo section been observed b. the aud
itor. He does not itenize his bills III DETAIL
| does lie spread them in iuli upon the minutes of
the board before drawing his order, and we re-
commend the commissio ners to allow more
bills to the auditor until he complies with tho
above section.
We find that the auditor has charged and re.
ceived pay on the following charges and bill:
| December 30, 9l.-
For making record Infrmary road Free
dom towp, including profile ...... see 40
Making record of Gerkin road in Napol-
con twp, including profile. ..........., 16 80
Making record of Gerken road In Free
i dom township including profile. ....... % 20
Making record of Bryan Pike in Free
dom tOwp including profile. -. .......... "A IA
1t can readily be seen that it rs impossible TO
without great trouble to detect how much OF the
above charges are illegal because he does not
state as the law requires the number of hundred
words, and the price charged per hundred but
Jumps 1t and calls it record including profile.
The law does not provide any pay for recording
either plat or aprofle by the auditor, and If
required the payment il provided for by giving
good price per hundred words for the balance
Of the record.
This is only one selected from a great many
bills Of the auditor. There are many more like
IL, and in each case he has charged about TWEEN
ty-five or thirty per cent more than the law al
lows. In Victor Noirot Ditch No. go, the aud
itor has charged $l533 for record including plat
and profile, and 50 cents for special assessment
record and index. In the John I. Riggs ditch
, S17.55 for record including plat and profile and
60 cents for special assessment record and index,
and like charge In THAT is In lump or gross) at
least twenty other ditohes we have examined.
The charge In gross only makes it harder for the
committee TO say how much is illegal but by q
fair estimate 1t is about twenty five per cent Of
the charge for the record, and in every case the
charge for the special assessment record Is ille-
gal, as no pay is provided by law therefor,
We find that the commissioners allowed and
the auditor charged $40 for making out annual
report, and we find that the auditor has charged
/ and the commissioners allowed him pay for
making transcripts of records they were
, required 10 finnish the purchasers OF bonds
and for other trascripts the said board
their official duties. This should mot be and in
our opinion is illegal. Section 1921 ,royides that
the auditor shall by virtue of his office be secre
tary OF the board Of commissioners and shall aid
them, when requested in the performance OF
their duties. He clearly. under said section
cannot s charge for transcripts the commissioners
CURED to furnish. We do mo-
D dcsire to censure any officer but
70 dir eGt them aright The auditor receives
A 34.36 per month and should not in addition,
present q bill for every kind of work done by
= him and werecOmmend the commiss soners In
future to see that all bills of whatsoever kind,
are fully and completely detailed, itenized, and
Q spread at large on the minutes of theft board.
We find the commissioners have on divers oc-
cassions advertised and sold contracts for public
work at public out cry to the lowest bid der and
: In every case. without an exception such work
4 cost the county more than when let at private
| contract and In our opinion no work should In
b this enlightened age be let at public out-cry;
only gets the h contractors together 70 give them q
prices as they call it. No good business
Il putting contract up at public out-cry and sell
q ling to the highest bidder, then why should the
. caunty do SO? No board ofcommissioners ever
b yet found 1t success. The law does not require
continue It, We ld the evils OF this system fully
y illustrated by joint bridge built between
Henry and Fultoa counties let at public out-cry
work cost $50 per cord. we believe The con,mis-
soners of Fulton county are honorable gentle
men, and In every way good upright business
men, yet we think that work cou.d have been
e let at private contract by the. Henry county
commissioners for $A per cord.
g. We had been informed that the raising OF a
II bridge and building abuttments on the Florida
n and Okalona road had been let TO one George
e Holder at $i7 per cord after one John Ryan put
70 In bid to do the same work
i for sis per. cord and we fully investigated
,ne & same ,eI ana called in the commissioners who
81 ing the matter. They both testified that the
d contract had been given 10 George Holder at Sl7
10 per cord six months before Ryan made bid and
d Holder had the Stone on the ground to go "a
p work at the time Ryan made said bid, but that
the board had neglected to haveH Holders contract
. tournalized. This work was not advertised but
Ia Ryan had found out that the contract with Hol.
ID eer was not tournalized and endeayered TO run
q down the price SO Holder would have TO lose
d money. The said commissioners further testi
ct fed that they had had great deal of trouble
ir with John Ryan on work he had done, and that
10 he did bad work unless they kept constant
watch; and that his bids for the same kind q
work on the Holgate Pike was afterward put in
al nearly sl90 90 per cord; that under the circum
It. stances OF Ryans bid. they knowing his object
70 refused TO- violate their verbal contract with
* Holder and they then caused Holders contract
at to be 1ournalized. We find the price paid Hold
to er was cheaper than such work is usually done
ct for and we find the Commissioners in rejecting
kyans bid acted in good faith aud for the bes
ls We have examined the printing bills and
Ill nnd that IN nearly every instance the commiss
toner's have cut the bills below living prices
10 me snerins proclamation viii IN was published
IN three papers as required by law was cut t,
Wy just what the law would allow two papers to
"a wit $lls.go and so with the commissioners re
w port. While the economy Of the commission
= ers Is commendable In this as we'll as any 9th
70 er line yet we think the printer should recey,
rs wVat thd law allows him for his services al
all well as the commissioners or any other office
mt should aeceive what the law allows fhcn ~
re- for their services, ~ = =
ed We have examined the above report will
microscopic scrutiny and have reported ever,
al portion on which this committee agreed or dis
he agreed and In conclusion will say we fnd th,
sy- commissioners are managing the affairs Of tn
as county honestly prudehtly and economical,
nd and that public work IA done cheaper and bet
Ike ter in this than in any of the adjoining couli
ties. That the work done is good, substantial
- and Permanent. That the same amount of mon
{ ey. will never be better expended
b We submit the foregoing, with whatever o
M criticism, In the kindliest spirit for their con
ed sideration, and we hope for their future guide
JAMES p. RAGAN AZ
Ia Prosecuting Attorney.