The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-06-21
AUDITORS REVIEW.
To the honorable. the judges of the
court of common pleas of Lacka'


To the honorable, the judges of the
court of common pleas of Lacka-
wanna county:
We, the undersigned auditors, beg to
submit, together with the subjoined
audit of the accounts of the county
commissioners of the expense incurred
for remodelling the court house, the
following report:
In the summer of 1896 the remodel
ling of the court house was begun and
the work continued until late in 1897,
for which the gross amount expended,
as shown by the vouchers of the county
commissioners, was $149, ,515.40. This
work was provided for in par: by con-
tracts under which several contractors
claimed and received, in addition to
the contract price, extras to the amount
of S3l 5i6.O6 going to make up the above
stated total In some instances, no
contracts appear to have been made.
In one instance, viz, the interior fin
ish and decoration of the Superior court
room, no effort appears to have been
made to secure contract but the work
was done at the instance of the COM
missioners by firm known as James
II. Hall & Co.. of New York. who were
authorized to do the work al cost with
ten per cent. additional charge for
profit.
The first contract awarded was for
Berlin Iron Bridge company at 500 900.
What is known as the principal con-
tract was afterwards awarded to Con-
rad Schroeder, covering the masonry
and carpenter work, at SCI ,457. A con-
tract was awarded to James T. Hall &
Co. for decoration of court room No.
at $i,250; another to j. B. Mccoy for
electrical fixtures for $4,S00 another to
Hunt & Connell for plumbing, etc. for
a,9S1. All of these contracts are
claimed by the county commissioners
to have been awarded to the successful
bidder among several competitive bids.
These bids are not on file in the COM
missioners' office and cannot be found
and the only evidence of such bids are
the minutes kept in the county COM
missioners' minute-book, except in the
| case of Hunt & Connell bid for the
plumbing, one letter is found referring
| to an alleged proposal of a date a few
| days earlier than the letter.
FIGURES IN DETAIL.
The amount of these contracts as
| well as of the extra work, the number
| OF vouchers, the amount and date OF
| payments, total cost, classification and
name of bidder is shown by tabulated
statements hereto attached.
| There have been submitted to the
| auditors for approval claims embody.
| Ing the contracts and bills of extras
| from the several contractors amount.
| ing to something more than the tota
| above stated; from this certain deduc
| tions were made by the county com
| missioners and remitted. leaving a net
| payment as shown by the warrant!
| drawn on the county treasurer by thr
! commissioners of $l49, 9,5l540.
| The auditors have thus far from the
| papers submitted to them found IL i'm.
| possible to ascertain positively wha
| items so to make up the difference be
! tween the two amounts. We have
| found it necessary to have the assist
| ance of legal advice and have brought
| before us by subpOenaS all of the wit
nesses who could be expected to b.
| able TO identify or explain the pay
| ments that seem to be open to ques
| tion. We have called upon the count!
| commissioners for the production of al
| papers in any way relating TO the eX
| penditures. We have also compelled
| the production of plans, maps an,
| drawings which were in the possession
| of B. II. Lacey, the acting architect o
the work under the firm name of T. /
| Lacey d Son.
| 1t is possible that some of the item,
| disallowed by us may be included II
! the deductions which were made by tn
! county commissioners either on thei
own motion or at the instance of Mr.
| Lacey, the architect because in man.
| instances We have found that nelthe
the county commissioners nor the ar
chitect could identify or explain Wha
certain deductions covered or for Wha
reason they were made. If an item