Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1903-10-01
THAT Auditors Office Repsst
Omaha, Neb. Sept. 9, 1903.

this report to you at this time
relative to the County Auditors
Office, | desire to advise you
that there are certain matters
in connection with freight
charges on car load shipments
of bridge lumber, covering
about twelve cars and involv-
about $4,000 which notwith-
stan ling every effort on my
part | am unable to clearly ex-
plain OF locate at this time.
have appealed to the railroad
general offices in Chicago for
the need ID Information, but so
far without results. | have de-
layed my report in this office
cxpestias, to Sc. the informa-
ton and 81 b. able to make a
complete report, i'm my judg-
ment now the only thing left
to do is to go to Chicago, get
access to the RAILROAD records
and place this $4,000 where
it properly belongs.
[ have gone carefully over
the records of this office, check
ing claims to Claim Register,
Claim Register to warrants, eX-
amined fee book, investment of
school land fund, verified Sc
curities, and other matters con-
nected with this Office. The
principal items discovered re-
late to the deduction of freight
from car loads of bridge lum-
Der, errors in figuring up claims
duplication of warrants and
failure to report certain fees,
these are shown on exhibits A
to % with remarks attached,
showing what disposition to-
wards clearing them up has
been made.
In explanation of how these
errors came to be made | may
tsate that the former board of
supervisors was in the habit of
buying car lots of lumber at
delivered prices. In some cases
the freight was paid by the
lumber company in others by
the county, and should of course
be deducted from the lumber
companys invoice, this latter
method was not always carried
out, and hence the excessive
payment. Topresent this more
clearly, | quote the following
example: Wheeler G Co. ship
ped car 1925 and their gross
invoice was $231.22, when the
car reached hele the county
paid the freight, S94.07. In
paying Wheeler & Co. for the
lumber this amount should
have been deducted and the
warrant drawn for S181.15, in
stead of this the claim was al
lowed and the warrant drawn
for the gross amount, $281.22,
thus defrauding the county
$94.07.
Errors of like nature with a
car duplicated and errors in
figuring amounting to S693.95
have been filed against this one
company wheeler & Co.. the
case is now pending in the
courts and payment of uncash-
ed warrants held by them have
been enjoined to cover this
amount. Uniformity in method
by making the shipper always
pay the freight, the rule now
observed by your board, is the
proper solution preventing any
recurrence of similar errors in
the future, and | would suggest
that in the future all claims
filed should be figured over, ex-
tensions and addition checked
before being allowed, and this
properly should be done by the
auditors department.
Regarding duplication of
warrants, these have come
through failure of the auditors
department tomark off on claim
register the warrant number
and date when warrant was is
sued, these amounts have either
been returned and cancelled or
claims and warrants are now on
file from which they will be
deducted. also show in ex-
hibit G list of claims paid by
warrants but not so marked on
the register, these of course
were a liability against the
county until cancelled by me.
To correct this and avoid it in
the future / would advocate
that as soon as claims are al
lowed by the board the warrants
should be made out by the au-
ditor and filed away alphabet
ao11x, ,,pf;1 oo1la6 fnr