The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-12-18

The spirit of investigation is in the
atmosphere at the court house.
1t first became manifest when the
board of examiners of the commission
ers report made statement to the
public that O. broom factory, that was
estimated to cost about $4,000 had cost
about ten times that sum, or $4,000.
Since that time the public has been
demanding, In various ways, something
more about the operations of the con-
tract for that job, and incidentally has
been inquiring about certain other mat
ters that are said to be of interest to
taxpayers, in the conduct of the work.
house since the time of It's construc-
ton.
1t appears now that the whole matter
may be gone into and 1t Is known That
certain data has been placed in the
hands of Prosecuting Attorney Day.
by ihm to be used in ferreting out the
exact condition Of things and to get
back, If possible, some Of the money
that has been illegally spent in con-
nection with the Stark county white
elephant.
Architect Hammond in a letter print
ed in the News Democrat Friday. stated
that the entire building called the work.
house, originally, cost $35,752: Now a
borhood of $4,000. Architect Hammond
suggests that comparison OF figures
might be interesting. These figures
were asked for by News-Democrat
man, but Auditor Reed stated that they
were all mixed in bunch with others
were not sorted out or something OF
that kind and were therefore not avail
able.
The Job of plumbing, which was done
by Oby e. Co., cost alone something
like $4,000. That amount Of plumbing
in a shed is looked upon as something
quite beyond comprehension. 1t Is said
by some persons who defend the broom
factory deal. that the work was not all
confined to the broom factory, but that
certain items were for work done in the
main building, in the way OF repairs
and improvements. Thia has LED 10 tne
inquiry on the part of some taxpayers,
why the work was not done in the first
place. They contend that If 1t was
necessary to spend such money on
plumbing, there must have been some
thing wrong with the job In the first
place. and 1t is suggested that an in
Vcstigation undertaken in spirit of
fairness will go back to the original con-
struction and see IL, as matter OF fact
the plumbing was not done right in the
first place. If II was not 1t will prob
ably be considered pertinent to inquire
done right in the first instance, 1t will
then be deemed pertinent to inquire
what became Of the $4,000 that was put
into plumbing in what was not intended
for more than a Workshop. a sort or
shed in which brooms might be made.
while the wcrkmen were protected from
the weather and given sufficient power
to run the small amount Of machinery
necessary.
The comparison of the cost of the two
buildings will doubtless be reached in
due season, IL the investigation is to go
on, and 1t IL persistently rumored about
the court house that 1t Is to go, and that
experts ore to be appointed to 60 over
the books and see what they can find
out in the way of monies expended IL
legally or d,ysrteH I'd te rWa@S priyate use; sssr
In this connection 1t Is said that a
letter is in the hands Of the prosecuting
attorney, which makes some charges
concerning the alleged diverting to pri-
vate use. certain provender and monies,
or the proceeds OF the sale OF material material
of whatever the proceeds consisted
during the time Of the conduct OF the
workhouse This letter does not men,
ton dates specifically, but 1t is said
that II goes to the question direct.
Time has not been had TO investigate
but 1t Is understood that the investi-
cation is to take a turn OF that char
acter after 1t Is started.
1t is altogether probable that more
than one person will be called upon
to offer explanations concerning certain
matters that are said to have occurred
since the workhouse has been con-
structed.
In this connection II is not unlikely
that Auditor Reed may be asked some
questions. 1t is not claimed that there
has been a diverting OF funds or any
thing of that sort in hio office, but II
IL claimed that Illegal bills have been
paid. Auditor Reed. In an interview,
has been quoted as saying that he con-
siders the workhouse bills illegal so
far as that broom factory was concern
ed, and inquiry may be made as to
why they were Maid, II II should be
found that they lire Illegal 81
Fl THE AUDITOR'S DUTY.
It may come to point where the au-
ditor may be asked II he knew what
the cost of the building was to be and
what the understanding of the commits
sioners was about II. II he does not
know what the understanding OF the
commissioners was, II is ilkclv 10 be
asked why he does not know. The law