Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1903-10-08

II. BTpchInleT .s..s...s4.. ,..5....z.z Ni't1 |
ID. Weller 4 Co. ............... AS "a
.I D. Torlina ...... $1,000. SO
Dodd & Lembker ..... 1880. l65
Ed Clouthier .......... ...... 30.99 /
There are number ef payments
made from this special iund claims
for which do not appear in the COM
missioners record. They are as fol
lows.
Emiliano Sandoyal -. ...S 30
Francisco Romero .... 5S.la
H s. Knight. agent 1.57
i. X. Hubbell S6951
e. X. Newhall 1.3S7.oo
#C. X. Newhall. Coll. ...... $1,000
C. X. Newhall, Coll. ....., 3o,24
~ ". Risdon ..... 1000
Juan q. Sandoyal ....... 249.SS
III n summers 500
1t is to be noted that this list is quite
different from, and much smaller than
similar list in Mr.. Saffords state
ment. This is to be attributed to the
fact that Mr.. Stafford used for purposes
Of this comparison book prepared by
the county clerk for his own use and
convenience, unofficial in character,
while in this statement resort Is had
to the official record Of the county
board
it Is impossible to account for these
last payments. No one can tell
whether they were or not just claims
against the county. II is doubtful Il
any evidence can now be had about
them. As to the item Of $l,3370O paid
by Mr. Newhall to himself. Mr.. SAT-
ford says II is his impression that
This amount covers per cent COM
mission, an attorneys bill and an ex,
pense account, of which things he had
heard nothing. He says his under
standing is that Mr.. Newhall was al.
owed q commission of something like
2 per cent" but by whom allowed Is
not stated. Mr.. Stafford makes no at
tempt TO explain the other payments
of s537.24 to Mr.. Newhall. That he Is
in error as 10 his impression about the
II ST. .337 90 seems quite certain when We
note the fact that that amount is ex-
actly 4 per cent upon the $33,425,
! which Mr.. Stafford believes to be the
i proceeds of the sale of the bonds. The
s537.24 was probably intended to
cover the other expenses. Whether
these payments to Mr.. Newhall were
Just or not there is no present means
of knowing but there can be no dts
1, mute that they, as well as all of the
other payments ought to have been
made only upon the order 81 the board
of county commissioners drawn in the
manner prescribed by law.
There remains TO be considered q
payment 81 slo.2O5 from this special
account of the First National bank
N Mr. Stafford accounts for this by stat
ling that the county borrowed slo,oVs
4 from this bank In two equal install
(. ments OF $4,000 each. in August and
I November 1901. and this was mere
tnayment of that debt with interest
\ There III nothing whatever u ana
!. county record as to this loan. In tht
4 trcasurer,s books appear Two items q
i. $4,000 each. showing the receipt y
him ef those amounts III August am
J, November, but there Is nothing I
show that this money came from ~
bank These amounts are probably lai
advances from tho bank less the treas
; urer,s per cent commission. Tn
\ toans were made without authority &
!, law. and we're nnlawfully paid
\ Nothing too severe can be sal
!, about this bond transaction. AZ IN
I, present time II cannot be said, VIII
/. certainty. that as result the count
Y Or any individual has been defra'iee
4 but II is obvious that such metho
of conducting public business open
the door TO fraud and wrongdoing
with but slight chance Of snbseduen
" detection. have gone into this ma
!, fer nj considerable length in the hop
that publicity may make The recn
7, rcnce 81 such procedure improbable
:, Ilf not impossible.
Another subject for serious consi'
Y Grafton is that Of the business method
lyl
n cnntinnnd On nage two.