The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-31

Expert Douglas Yoarg Is after the coun-
y commissioners wao served from jam
arg, Ise1. 10 January. 1857. he fled 4 re-
port yesterday. devoted especially % the
amount OK tine ard mileage charged os'
and paid 70 the various commissioners Dur
ing that period. After citing the decision
OF the supreme court 70 the effect that the
commissioners were got entitled 10 mileage
under sHy c.rcurnSss Iess. the report con-
tiuues:
I report the amounts thus illegally paid.
that yea may take such action as yol
deem proper. The surns 70 be recovered
are reported under separate heads. In MY
examination Of the claims filed have no.
tsceG items that I aave thought necessary
10 comment upon and which follow each
statement.
cot the whole I must say that il ~ my
judgment and belief that the commission
ers Of each period have received from the
county al faat could possibly have been
claimed and more than strict honesty
would have permitted. an exception should
b. Hace however. Ia the account OF the
commissioner oE the Second district for
the per.oa Of January. iss5. 20 January.
1S95. IN the matter OF the number 81 days
service. ne has beer modest Ia his claims
as compared ~i,h his predecessors and col
leagues.
..The commissioners have been the keep
ers Of their own tine and passed upon
their OWE bills. 80 that q check Was ilnpos-
slhie
a distance az from four to ten miles
travel 70 vle~ bridge or road work Is fra
qusntly billed, which. Of course. carries
with Il one days service. while. could tins
truth De determined. perhaps bat one
quarter 81 a day could IN honesty have
been charged.
Board and Ecdglng. while IN the coun-
try appEals.ng school lands. have been
charged AZ go per DAP. wRiie later. after
the courts passed upon the mileage ques-
ton. board and lodging - tie city i billed
CT but $40 per Gay.
''Isquiry OF farmers prompts me 70 say
that the charE wGs unjust. Tor the reason
that rarely. u ever. was a commissioner
charged for meals or hed. frequently one
day was spent appraissng school lands
within ten niles % Seattle. indeed. In one
case, just wlthoat TIE city limits. the
charge $50 was made. waen X IS known
that The commi ss3oners left TIE city in the
morning and returned g., aiEnt-
1t does net seem possible that the coun-
tvs business should have demanded OF the
commissioners almost constant time u
IS not probable that during their term q
Office each 50 neglected has own business.
II time has been given 20 private affairs.
King county shenld not have been charged,
In the term lSaI-Iss3 WoodIng Travelled
74if miles Taylor. 7.ia2 miles.
''In the term OF ISs7-1sss wedding Travelled
u.2A miles: Rutherford. L. 1s2is miles: in
the first case so. IN the second 1905.
and IN the aggregate ssSais miles more
than the preceding term. Tie necessity Of
the large increase IS not apparent
There are but few OF the bills on file
itemized and none ~ the expense items
Is covered by vouchers. These came
boards would have required OF the sheriff.
or other officials. vouchers for expsndl-
lures while travelling IN the performance
OF public duty. and should have required
the same Of each member.
Auditors are expected TO always stand
between A dishonest or sxtFavagant board
OF county commissioners and the pub
lie: the title implies such 2 duty. strict
performance ot duty prompts such a
course while failure demands ceusure.
The total amount received was s.. 10. -.
During the period OF time covered the
commissioner Of district No. tSsattle)
billed to and was paid by the county for
S2S7 miles OF travel Daring the period
OF time covered t. this statement ne was
paid for s0zis days service A perasal by
months or the sums paid disoloses IN
usual industry. IN February. April July.
August. September and December. 1922, Re
billed 20 the county and was paid sor the
fun number OF working days IN each
month.
I'm June and September. 1851. and Janu-
airy. May ard November is92. he billed
and was paid Cor one day more than
there we're working DAYS in the month.
7 refer 20 general fund bill No. 6 sos for
expense for trip 70 Olympia. two days
50. The amount is 50 IN excess OF the
actual expense incurred. as I find by tire
Itemized claim ~ ths auditor. and 80
In excess ~ the claim % Commissioned
wooding, who visited Olympus az the same
time and fer the same purpose.
The commissioner from district No ,
during his term % office received from
King county for salary. g 90. mileage
$40 ~ expenses. yso7.sS: total. s40e75
The number - miles Travelled with TIE
per dem charged and paid for. must suE.
gest unusual diligence, especially 50 as
the mileage paid Tor does rot cover tina.
Travelled Tor TIRE purpose q appraisirg
school lands. expenses being charged II
the latter case
I'm April June. July and August. fssi.
sud April. June and July 1sss each and
every DAY n The respective months have
been charged ard pad for. while IN May
ard September. one day. ard Novem Der
iS%t- two laws more. and January May.
Sep'errhe- ard November ore day. and
February Use. two DAYS more each are
charged ana paid Tor thau there were
working DAYS q The meath.