The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-16

more than the funds warranted.
The amount due from interest OF
/ funds Dec 81, 1896 is Shown by Mr..
Bateman to be S5.29494 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,O34.79 cash in
the treasury, available for general pur-
poses.
The statement for 1895 shows that
this surplus had been reduced to the
sum of S937.7S, so that the county COM
missioners during the year 1895 not
only expended the entire revenue for
that year Cncluding the balance due
from Tax Collector Hurlbut of s10.-
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 s24,097.01.
The statement for 1896 shows that
the small surplus of S9S7.78 at the be-
ginning of the year was disposed of
and debt amounting to $29.S34.91 in
Cured, so that the expenditures for
the year 1896 exceeded the revenue by
the sum of 0,772.60.
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. Oh and the eX-
cess for 1896 was $50, 772.69. The total
aod in, Of
nue. for the two years, $54. 500. 40. 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
treasurer, which includes all of the
trust funds previously mentioned, and
l have taken the actual cash figures
and transactions only.
The foregoing is correct statement
of the facts so far as the records show
them, and l reach the conclusion that
the last county administration went
into office with:
Cash on hand ............-...s 25,O34 10
They departed from office
leaving an Indebtedness to
be paid off, exclusive of all
availa bic assets ............. 1884 81
Total amount expended in
excess of revenue $54,S69 20
The expenditures in building the
court house addition were large and
a special section of the report is de-
voted to this: The sum total was
$50. 77495. Some of the heaviest items
were 5. Lancaster. carpenter work,
IS, 1854. 90: Lancaster & Leek. brick work,
So, 1875; John Pignon. rock work,
g, $500: Diebold Safe & Lock com
pany. $4140: ~ J. Anderson, tower |
carpenter work, 81. 1870; E. W. Wade |
and others. painting and vanishing, |
s791 So.
The report shows what contractors
had specific contracts and whether |
they had bonds. also the amounts paid |
for. The total of such excess is
So 563.60.
Bateman then says that it appears
from statements that carelessness ex-
sted in regard to making contracts,
and recording them on the minutes. 1t
S proba BILE that others were entered |
nto. but as they are not recorded nor
sled he is unable to take them into ac-
cunt. Very few of the vouchers for
extra work give any definite informa-
ion.
October %, 1895. the minutes show
hat Selectman Wade submitted plans
or the construction of the county
,ourt house and estimated that the
building could be rebuilt for the money
allowed on insurance. The plans We're
,dOpted. The amount received on in
urance on buildings was $4,000, and
he total cost of building and furniture
hOuld have been in the neighborhood
f $4,000 The plans could not have
zen adhered to as the cost was about
10000 in excess of this figure.
CRAFT OF CONTRACTORS.
The Richardson contract seems to
ave been handled in a peculiarly
areless manner. The first payment
ras made Sept. 2. 1895, and payments
-ere made each month thereafter with
ne exceDton) until Dec. IS. 1896. No
adger account was kept of this con-
ract. The claims each month were
pproved ard paid and the amount
harged up to court house account. 1t
possible that superintendent Wade
nd the contractor knew how much
ad been paid each month. but it is
srtain that no one in the clerks office
new how much had been paid or en-
Favored to keep any check on the |
mount. Noticing that the total amount l
aid on this contract was nearly three
mes the amount of the original con- {
act and finding no ledger account, l '
Spected on the final payment to find |
a..
,me details. All vouchers prior to the I
st one. simply say: Estimate on I
srpenters work. or labor and ma Y
rial" and the last voucher, dated \
&c. 26 1885, says: ITO labor and ma
rials on court house on final settle r
eat 1895, certified to by f. W. /
'ade. This is all the information i
ven and so far as auditing the ac- +
'unt is concerned the final payment =
light have been $500 more and the a
ror could not now be detected. 2
On voucher No. 1852. I.eek & Ian +
ster. there is q deduction of SIS. IS
+ amount previously overdrawn, but y
particulars are given. and il is i'm
ssible to check it, as there is no in >
given on previous vouchers. I
It seems that the brick, rock, cut I
one. metal roofing and plastering only
ST $S.9SS. while the carpenter work. L
/ including the tower. cost 1854.
No plans or blue prints either of the :
mex or of the reconstructed part of z
e original building are on file.
IATI. CnNrTTo f,rr