The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-02-22
II. B. BOUDAR & co.

H. B. BOUDAR & CO.,
General Public Accountants,
Richmond, Va, Norfolk, Va.
Bishopville. S. c., Feb. 14th, 1905.
The Board of Commissioners Of
Lee County, South Carolina.
Gentlemen -
We beg leave to report to your
Honorable Body, that We have made
an examination of the Office of the
Supervisor OF your county, said ex-
animation covering the period of }. O..
DuRant's incumbency, from January
1st., 1908 to December 23rd., 1904, in
elusive.
We submit for your earnest con-
sideration the exhibits hereto attach
ed.
Exhibit A
(pages to 9 inciusive)
This is an itemized. list of warrants
drawn by the Supervisor, in payment
of vouchers that are not approved. by
the Board Of Commissioners, the
claims represented therein being fo'
various county purposes, aggregatlne
$685.. %.
EXh1SlG
(pageS 10 and IL
Tins is similar list Of warrants
paid, but the vouchers are for salar-
les only, and aggregate the sum OF
Exhibit G
(pages 12 to 20)
This is list of 269 warrants draw
by the Supervisor, aggregating the
sum Of Sll937. SO, for which there are
40 vouchers receipts or statements Oh
file IN this Office.
Exhibit D.
(page 21)
There is a summary of all warrants
Drawn by the Supervisor, (includins
hose embraced in the proceeding ex-
,ibits) aggregating the sum OF S62,
982 S3.
Exhibit E.
(page 22(
This is a statement of Supervisor j..
| }. Darant's salary account, showlns
warrants issued in his favor in excess
# the amount fixed by law Ill the
sum of 1924. 81.
Exhibit F
(pages 23 and 24)
This is a list of warrants drawn b,
the Supervisor in favor OF WIN. +
1rooms aggregating the sum OF $3l52.
81.
Exhibit G..
(pages 20 to 28)
This is a list of liabilities OF Le'
county embracing Bonded debt, Note
f.r borrowed money from the Banl
and the Sinking Fund, Notes and
warrants issued in settlement OF claims
and unsettled claims aggregating the
sum of $43, e96. SO.
Exhibit q.
(page 29)
This is list Of vouchers paid.
where the warrants issued, exceed tht
AMOUNT of the claims. We lind this
,fice has been very loosely conduct
I'd and an almost entire disregard pale
to the law defining the duties of the
supervisor. Schedules A, B & @.
show that warrants agsregatng $2l,-
$40. 80 were issued without proper au
thority, and if any we're authorized.
the vouchers do not show it. A large
,roportion of the vouchers approved by
the Board, show no details by which
they can be verified, very few are
receipted or sworn to, and many bear
40 date. Some vouchers show alter
alton of the figures, and that such
alterations we're made after approval
by the Board. and in some instances,
sarrants were issued for more than
he hills enclosed in the vouchers.
Very many vouchers are filled up by
the Clerk and no items specified, mere
Iy stating for Road-work, Road and
Bridge work for account rendased,
etc. & etc., but no accounts attached,
and not receipted. Some of the war
rants are made payable to bearer.
The miputes Of the meeting of the
Board, with the exception of the
months of January and February,
1903, fail to record the name of the
claims and the amount of each claim
presented and approved, but simply
contains the fact, that various claims
were presented and approved. -
No copy of the list of claims ap-
proved by the Board, has ever been
furnished the Treasurer as provided by
law.
Schedule D. shows the amount of
warrants issued monthly for each sep
arate purpose, and the total amount
issued monthly, the amount of war
rants issued yearly for each separate
purpose, and the total amount issued
for the two years for all purposes. The
total issue amounted to s62, 982. 50, of
which amount there was issued for
Roads, Bridges and Chain-gang the
SUN of s23, $685. The estimate of the
Supervisor for Roads, Bri lges and
Cbain-ga for the year 1903 was
so, 500, but Exhibit D, shows an ex-
penditure of sSS0l. SO, over three times
the estimate, and for the year 1904
an expenditure Of sl5, 19l.04, over six
times the estimate.
Schedule E, shows that the Super
visor j. O. Durant issued to himself
warrants for salary to the amount of
81, 477.95, whilst his salary as fixed
by law was only 81, 1S3 80, he has,
therefore, drawn illegally the sum of
SlS4, 81, and should refund same to
the Treasury. Mr.. Dnrant stated to