The San Francisco call., 1895-11-02
Suit to Be Brought Against
Two Supervisors From
Vallejo.
SCORED BY THE GRAND JURY
Custodians of the Peoples Money
Accused of Diverting 1t to Their
Own Pockets.

contents has not abated and the narrow
escape a number of the members of the
Board of Supervisors had from being in
dicted for mismanagement of the county
funds is the talk of Fairfield the county
seat, and all of the towns that boast of
political circles, and as result of it the
District Attorney of the county has been
instructed to sue two of them whose
breaches of the law we're the most fragrant,
and The papers in the cases will probably
be filed within few days.
Those who are to be brought before the
courts to show why they should not return
moneys received by them to the County
Treasury are Supervisors J. II. McCudden
and E. McGettigan of Vallejo.
The report OF the jury directly charges
mem bers of the board with infractions of
the law and with manipulatons of the
county work in favor of themselves and
their families, and recommend sweeping
changes in the present condition OF affairs.
After stating that it had treated with but
one criminal matter during its session, the
report says:
ave believe the question of roads is the
most important question with which we
have dealt. We find that the county has
expended during the past year for road
purposes $54, 900, which is about one-half
the total expenses of the entire county,
aHd as the benefits from this large outlay
of money are not satisfactory TO the ma
iorily of the taxpayers of the county, we
hav., endeavored to find out where the
fau. lies and if possible point out
ren.edy.
"1,he old roadmaster system was very
unsatisfactory, and the Legislature was
induced to pass a law doing away with the
road;naster, and making the Supervisors
Roar Commissioners, and making it obi
gatp.y on them to do all the work by con-
trac' they to let the contract and super
visfe he work, for which they were to re-
ceir;e not to exceed $500 each year, in ad-
dir )n to their salary as Supervisors, for
81 : services.
fBut, before 'he law was ever tested, the
th1n Board of supervisors went before the
LEGISLATURE and induced it to so change the
la{ as to leave it discretionary with
ths board how the road work should be
doae. Now we find that this change in
the law, 'or otherwise clause, as it is
termed, has practically annulled the law
and carried Us back 20 the old roadmaster
system. For the Supervisors of Solano
- >.
ami in every way are doing the work the
sane as under the old roadmaster system,
only the roadn lster is responsible to the
Supervisors in place of being responsible
to she people.
%We believe the intent of the law has
betn and is lleing violated. We do not
think the Legislature intended to do away
with the contract system. but only to give
i a.
discretion to make small repairs, when
urgently required, and when not practi-
cable to let by contract. We think that
all road work, so far as practicable. should
be done by contract and should be let to
the lowest responsible bidder.
1--WE believe as long as the Supervisors
have the discretion to do the road work in
way to suit their own individual ideas,
and as long, as in some instances they have
done, they give the preference to their i'm
mediate friends and relatives without any
competition, and at such prices as they
see fit to give, we shall have very unsatis-
factory work performed.
''To place half the revenue of the county
in the hands OF any five men to expend
when and where and through whom they
please, and then expect them to pass upon
the bills in the interest of the people, is ex-
pecting too much; yet they are doing that
very thing. The Supervisors say how
much money shall be raised for road
purposes; they say when the work shall be
done, by whom it shall be done, and how
much they shall be allowed for doing it,
when it is q notorious fact that they have
their own teams and members of their
own family work on the roads, and they
pass on the bills in the interest of the
taxpayers!
"The law says the Board of Supervisors
must not hear or consider any claim in
favor OF any individual against the county
unless an account be properly made out,
giving all items OF the claim, duly verified
as to its correctness.
Yet we find the Supervisors have been
passing on their own bills without COM
plying with the law. The members have
puI in bills for $25 per month for mileage,
those with only six miles OF road charging
as much as those with 200 miles, it being
clearly their intention to exhaust the last
cent of the limit allowed by law, when
there is no evidence from the bills TO show
they have performed any service or that
any was necessary. and we recommend
that the District Attorney be instructed TO
commence suit TO compel them to refund
the money to the county"
After specifying the sum of the mileage
bills that incurred their dispieasure the
lurymen 60 on to say:
The law also expressly stipulates that
these bills must be certified to before the
District Attorney. We therefore find that
the law has only been complied with in
this respect in but one single instance dur
ing the past year Q894). In most instances
the bills of Supervisor have been certified
10 by a fellow member, or by the County
Clerk. In several cases bills for Vallejo
were allowed that had not been certified to
before any official.
ave also find that in claim 211 from Val
lejo, Thomas Z. Gookin for nursing E. A.
Harvey was allowed So day for twenty
one days, making S63. This in our opinion
was an unwarranted proceeding. and such
bill should never have been allowed. We
.annot pass by unnoticed the allowing of
S365 to r. E. Willot, the then County