The record-union., 1896-04-24

|
the taxpayers, as well as the law, as
| amended road laws.
Many claims have been allowed which
are not properly itemized, some of
them made out for road work." am
giving no dates, nor stating where the
work was done. When the number and
amount of such claims are considered.
the Grand Jury is justified in the opin-
ion that such business methods are tlS
result of at least incompetency, if
nothing worse.
A number of claims for road work
have been allowed in duplicate DUR
ing the year. Claims Nos. 2,465 and
1,41S are duplicate claims, being
for the same work for. respectively, $50
and $50. The difference, S4 was an
oversight, but always against the
county, as the latter claim was made
out for road work, $50, and was al
lowed on the same day as that for $50.
John Hazel, in whose favor the claims
We're made, stated that he knew at the
time he drew the money he had too much
money, and so stated to Supervisor
Jenkins, and it is to be regretted that
the Supervisor did not make it his
business, as it was his duty to see that
the money was returned to the treasury.
and not wait for several months, unit
the Grand Jury had uncovered this
fraud upon the taxpayers.
They have allowed claims for Illegal
mileage presented by Thomas Jenkins,
Road Commissioner of the Fifth Dis
trict and by William Curtis, Road
| Commissioner of the Fourth District
The claims of Thomas Jenkins for mile
age are always referred to William
| Curtis, who allows them without ques-
ton, and those Of William Curtis are re-
ferred to Thomas jenkins who allows
them in the same way We find that
Subdivision ) of Section No 2,645 of
Amended Road Laws, says:
THE Road Commissioner shall re-
ceive, as his compensation for travelling
over his road district in the perform
ance of his duties, twenty cents per
mile for one way
Supervisor Jenkins claim for seven
months of 1895 shows in most cases that
he has charged twenty cents per mile
for the entire distance travelled. and on
several occasions where mileage is
charged this way lin one case forty
niles). The minutes of the Board of
/ Supervisors show that he must have
been present during the entire sessions
| for those days, and in addition to this
| he has, in several cases, made the
| county pay his hotel expense bills. as
well as livery hire, which is contrary to
law and an imposition upon the tax
payers.
In connection with this Supervisors S
testimony in regard to this matter. he
stated that it made no difference what
| anybody thought about it, he always
arranged so as to use up his allowance
Of $500 per year for mileage.
The claims for Illegal mileage paid to
| William Curtis show that on the ten
days when he has charged for miIea ge
| the minutes of the board show him TO
nave been present during its entire ses-
sion for those days. And for several
trips for which he has charged mile
age at the rate of twenty cents per mile
for the whole distance Travelled. he pro-
! cured teams from parties who subse-
! quently collected for such livery hire.
All of which is contrary to law and a
tax upon the county that should be dis
continued
In justice to Supervisor Curtis we will
say: He stated that he had always sup
posed that he had the legal right to
charSe twenty cents per mile for every
mile Travelled in going over his road
| district, but nothing more; and when
shown hotel and other expense bills in
Cured by him while travelling over his
district and charging excessive mileage
at the same time, he said it was not
just that the county should be called
| upon TO pay such expenses, but stated
that he had been making his claims
! that way because it had been the prac-
tlce Of his predecessor on the board.
IL CLAIMS are properly compared and
examined by the Supervisors, and they
feIt only the desire to do their duty to-
wards the taxpayers, illegal and dupli-
Gated claims would not be found in such
large numbers as the Grand Jury found
| to be the case
In our Investigations we found that q
| most outrageous system of pools has
| been IN practice among the con-
| tractlng hrms who have built orr
bridges for several years past. Their
plan has invariably been to elect who
among their number should put in bids
and name who should be the successful
Bidder, the others putting in bids ONLY
to give the transaction the appearance
of fair competition. They first agree on
the amount each member of the pool
shall receive, and put in their bids ac
cordingly.
We found by this practice that the
McCracken bridge cost the county So
OoO more than the contractor received
for the work. We found that in the
building of the Folsom bridge at least
Si,oOO of the contract price was dis
tributed to parties other than members
| OF the contractors pool, and we ha 4
| evidence before the jury that the said
| FOLSOM bridge cost the county $4,000
more than the bridge could have been
built for with a fair profit to the con-
| tractor. AS to the existence of these
pools among the contractors we had
sworn testimony in regard to the Nc
Cracken bridge by several contractors
who were members of the pool
1t is a sad commentary on the manner
in which our county business is con-
! Quoted, and the treasury robbed when if
can be said that the system of pools. as
| managed by the contracting firms. is
known to our Supervisors, and still
worse, as in the case of letting the con-
! tract for the Folsom bridge members
OF the board at that time delayed let
ting the contract for months for the
evident purpose of compelling the con-
tractors to let them in on the pool
We thoroughly investigated the mat
ter and manner of appointments by the
| Supervisors, and found that they have
been for several years corruptly selling
| appointments. The deal is always a
cash transaction, and when an appli-
cant for an appointment is in doubt
about being able to pay their price and