Amador ledger., 1905-03-31
THE GRAND JURY REPORT.

members of that body had been
working on, either by committees
or in body, for nearly rec mou tbs,
is certainly out of the ordinary rut
of such documents. No doubt the
jury has been painstaking, and has
pried into county affairs pretty
thoroughly. The report speaks for
itself on that score. Many of the
recommendations and censures hand
ed out to the officials are timely,
and the reforms urged are in the
direction of law and good govern
ment. The recommendations con-
corning the work on the roads and
allowance aud payment of biNs are
in keeping with the strict letter of
the law. The Ledger has for years
pointed out The improperly of the
course adopted many years ago, in
Jumping bills for road work, but this
practice has ceased The coyote
bounty law is another weak spot
struck in the report, and they, might
with equal reason have included the
bluejay bounty law, for they both
stand on the same footing. The law
as it stands makes no provision for
the destruction of scalps after
bounty has been paid thereon. True,
a simple regard for public interests
might suggest that the scalps be de-
stroyed, to prevent the possibility
of double payment thereon, but the
ordinances do rot make this OBJ
ligatory, and are therefore fatally
defective. AS matter of fact the
scalps are not always destroyed.
They have been found lying loose
around the court house, for anybody
to pick up. Such !ooseness in legal
enactments ought not to be toler-
ated, and the jury has done good
service in calling attention to the
lameness of the law and practice.
There are, as might be expected,
several weak points in the report.
We do not believe body of men,
constituted as the grand jury is,
without practical acquaintance with
the details of local government, can
possibly, in the short time in which
the jury is in session, grasp the
whole system of county manage
ment. They are apt to be misled
by partial or incorrect information.
Where the plain obligations of law
are concerned, grand jury can
hardly get on the wrong track in
contending for the strict observance
of the statutes by county officials.
But when it comes to recommends
tion outside of the plain provisions
of law, or condemnation of officials
for the exercise of discretionary
power invested in them, they are
likely to be misled, and base their
comments on weak foundations.
Hence we find the jury recommends
the board of supervisors to spend
more of the public money on improv-
ing the county buildings, and not all
on the public roads. This is unin.
telligible as it. stands. The money
raised for road purposes cannot be
spent in any other way. 1t would
be fragrant breach of law and rem
der the supervisors open to prosecu-
tion to divert any portion of the
road funds to the improvement of
county buildings. If the report rec
commended the levy of smaller tax
for road purposes, and larger levy
for current expenses, it would be
understood, but as the matter
stands it is vague and misleading.
Again, the declaration that the
board of supervisors wasted $400 for
10 copies of the new county map,
because the map, as they contend,
is inaccurate in many ways, smacks
of ittleness. 1t attacks the board
in the exercise of powers that prop
erly belong to the county man
ayers, and unless the officials are
guilty of gross abuse in the exercise
of their discretion, it behooves a
grand jury to leave them unchal-
lenged in that domain. How absurd
to contend that money is wasted
because the work paid for is not
perfect. Imperfection is stamped
upon all human products. The
grand iurys report is in the same
category. 1t is not accurate in
many of its statements of fact, but
it does not follow that its work is
useless. To pay $400 to aid in the
compilation of a new map is a very
small SUM for such work. And
that the work was needed there can
be no question. To secure a COM
plete and elaborate map would have
cost ten times the sum, and would
moreover have not been of one whit
more practical value. No map was
ever made. or ever will be made