Amador ledger., 1902-05-09

the people, particularly those who
have come here from other counties.
and who at once noticed the differ
ence between the course followed
here and the procedure in such mat
ters in the counties from which they
came. The law is mandatory
nothing more so in connection with
the county government-that a full
and complete record must be kept
in the minutes of the proceedings
of the board of supervisors. Not
only must record be kept, but it
must be published in full The pur-
pose of this is obvious. Through
the county papers the citizens are
informed of every dollar paid by
order of the supervisors, and to
whom paid. The idea cannot be
tolerated for a moment that the law
is less exacting in such matters,
than a private corporation would be
in the transaction of its business.
What would be thought of the
directors of mining corporation
who, under the plea of saving cleri-
cal labor of ok-keeping, should
lump all the claims for wages of en-
ployes, and allow the bills in lump
form in their own names, draw the
money therefor, and then distribute
the cash to the individuals who
actually did the work. Would such
g. wage-paying system be tolerated
by any company? And yet that is
precisely the method that has been
followed in Amador county for years
SO far as road expenditures are con-
cerned. The names of the parties
who do the work and who finally get
the money have no place in the Of
fetal records. The taxpayers are
kept in ignorance of the men en-
ployed and the amount paid to each.
Look at the record in the minutes
published this week. Between $4,000
and $4,000 is allowed the supervisors
for labor on roads. Where else in
the state of California-or any other
state for that matter-will you find
a record like this. Who gets the
benefit of this money? We know
the supervisors themselves do not,
for that is contrary to the spirit and
letter of the law. Why then is it
made to appear on the face of the
minutes that they are the real bene-
ficiaries. Why are scores of names
of claimants suppressed, and one
county official, who does not and
cannot under the law receive one
dollar for road work outside of sal
ary for overseeing the same, sub
stituted in their place? Why are
the taxpayers-who are the real en-
ployers and wage-payers-kept in
the dark, when the law says they
shall be kept posted on such matters
by publication of itemized accounts.
If the system is meritorious as re-
CARDS the road funds. why is it not
also applied to the current expense
and hospital funds? Why not allow
the superintendent of the hospital
to lump all the bills for hospital sup
plies and services in one bill in his
own name, and draw the money, and
act as paymaster himself for that
institution? That would also save
clerical labor. Why not have the
county clerk put in a claim each
month for the sum total of all the
bills for current expenses, and pay
off the respective claimants? That
would save nine-tenths of the labor
involved in the present method of
keeping books. And it would be no
more out of Joint with legal enact
ments than the present method of
auditing road bills.
The only reason that has been
urged in defense of this system,
apart from the mere saving of cleri-
cal labor, is that to require each
wage-earner to put in a separate
bill would entail hardship and ex-
pense upon them, inasmuch as every
bill has to be sworn to, and this
would necessitate an appearance
before notary or justice of the
peace. There is no merit in this OBJ
lection. We are informed the super
visors have been given to under
stand that they have no authority
as supervisors to swear the claim
ants to road bills. AS a matter of
fact we know this has been done in
the past history of Amador county.
What is the meaning of this section
of the Political Code.
1923. Any member of the board (of
supervisory may administer oaths to
any person concerning any matter SUBJ
mitted to them or connected with their
powers or duties.
Who will say that this does not
confer authority to take the nee
essarY oath of a claimant to bill