The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-16
s54.112 Il
Excess Of IIabIities over assets. Sc

However, as the various funds hav
ing ito do with the bonded indebtedness
as well as the school fund are simply
trust bonds which could be invested
but not expended by the commission
ers, the handling of these moneys was
largely routine work and need not b'
considered. Mr.. Bateman'S report o.
the cash on hand Dec. 81, 1895. showst
the amount as S27. 1883. The report o.
that year showed s29, 1896, a differ
ence of S2,315.57. Mr.. Bateman shows
the cash on hand Dec. 81. 1885, as $24,
$4,000, while the report which was pre-
scented to the new board for their &C
ceptaEce showed SIG. 529. 9S-s1, 5S9.94
more than the funds warranted.
The amount due from interest OF
funds Dec 81, 1896. is Shown by Mr.
Bateman to be S5,2s4.94 Some of the
comments by Mr.. Bateman are quite
pointed without apparently meaning
to be. He says:
HAD A SURPLUS.
The statement for 1894 shows that the
ex-county commissioners went into
office with practically $25,034.79 cash in
the treasury, available for general pur-
poses.
The statement for 1896 shows that
this surplus had been reduced to the
sum of S9377S, so that the county COM
missioners during the year 1895 not
only expended the entire revenue for
that year Oncluding the balance due
from Tax Collector Hurlbut of sl0,-
250.53) but also expended the sum OF
S24 .097.01 from the surplus on hand
when they assumed office. Their ex-
penditures for the year 1895 must.
therefore, have exceeded the revenue
for that year by the sum of 24,091.Ol.
The statement for 1896 shows that
the small surplus of S937.7S at the be-
ginning of the year was disposed of
and a debt amounting to $29,S34.sl in
CURED, so that the expenditures for
the year 1896 exceeded the revenue by
the sum of $30.772.60.
After explaining the necessity of re-
garding certain funds as trust funds
and explaining his method of making
debts and credits to the different
funds, Mr.. Bateman concludes:
EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE.
The excess of expenditures over reve-
nue. for 1885 was S24 097.0 OF and the eX
cess for 1896 was $50. 1928. The total
amount expended in excess of the reve-
nue. for the two years, S54. S69.I0. In ar
irving at these figures / have disre-
garded the fictitious balances shown on
the ledger against the collector for the
different years occasioned by various
law suits; also the balances against the
which includes all of the
trust funds previously mentioned. and
l have taken the actual cash figures
and transactions only.
The foregoing is a correct statement
of the facts so far as the records show
them, and l reach the conclusion that
the last county administration went
r,asb on hand SOC O34 20
They departed from office
leaving an indebtedness to
be paid off, exclusive of all
available assets -............ 2S,S34 81
Total amount expended in
excess of revenue .-..--... $54,S69 20
The expenditures in building the
court house addition were large and
4 special section of the report is de-
7oted to this: The sum total was
'S6. 774.95. Some of the heaviest items
we're 5. Lancaster. carpenter work,
{. S54. &c: Lancaster & Leek brick work,
g. 1875; John Pignon, rock work,
z, 93S go: Diebold Safe & Lock com
lany, S4,140: \. ]. Anderson, tower
work, $1,419.70; E. W. Wade
md others. painting and vanishing, |
1876.
The report shows what contractors
lad specific contracts and whether /
hey had bonds, also the amounts paid |
n excess of what the contract called |
or. The total of such excess is
10 563. 60.
Bateman then says that it appears |
rom statements that carelessnesS ex- |
sted in regard to making contracts.
nd recording them on the minutes. Ii |
; proba BILE that others were entered |
ltO, but as they are not recorded nor
led no iS h1a RI q rhQno into o.
cunt. Very few of the vouchers for
Xtra work give any definite informa-
ion.
October %, 1895 the minutes show
hat Selectman Wade submitted plans
Dr. the construction of the county
curt house and estimated that the
uilding could be rebuilt for the money
llowed on insurance. The plans were
dopted. The amount received on in
lrance on buildings was $4,000, and
ne total cost of building and furniture
lould have been in the neighborhood
$4,000 The plans could not have
zen adhered TO as the cost was about
$1,000 in excess of this figure.
CRAFT OF CONTRACTORS.
The Richardson contract seems to
ave been handled in peculiarly
srelesS manner The first payment
as made Sept 2. 1895, and payments
ere made each month thereafter with
IL exception until Dec. %. 1896. No
dyer account was kept of this con-
act. The claims each month were
)proved ard paid and the amount !,
larged up to court house account. 1t
possible that superintendent Wade
Id the contractor knew how much
Id been paid each month. but it is
rtain that no one in the clerks office
r1ar1- hrr
avored to keep any check on the I
Mount. Noticing that the total amount !
id on this contract was nearly three
mes the amount of the original con- {
act and finding no ledger account, '
pected on the final payment to find |
recapitulation and statement giving |
me details. All vouchers prior to the [
ST one. simply say: Estimate on !
rpenters work. or labor and ma Y
'ial,' and the last voucher, dated
C. 26, 1896. says: ITO labor and ma
-ials on court house on final settle h
sat- 1896 certified to by +. ". /,
ade This is all the information /
zen and so far as auditing the ac- +
INT is concerned the final payment | Il
ght have been $500 more and the a
or could not now be detected 2
IN voucher No. 1852, Ieek & Ian
'ter. there is q deduction of SIS. IS
amount previously oVerdrawn, but :,
particulars are given. and il is i'm
ssible to check it. as there is no in :
nation given on previous vouchers. I
t seems that the brick, rock. cut
ne..metal roofing and plastering only
It $S.9SS. while the carpenter work, L
including the tower cost 1854.
10 plans or blue prints either of the
mex or Of the reconstructed part of
original building are on file. y
JAIL CONTRACT. a