The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-15
STATE Of AFFAIRS
IS REPREHENS|B[E
Report Sought by Glasmann to
Vindicate Himself Is
Boomerang.
VERY STRONG RESEMBLANCE
TO GRAFT is APPARENT
Irregular Payment of Claims
Due to Almost Criminal
Negligence.
Special TO Tho Tribune,

| Special TO The Tribune,
OGDEN, May l4-At the regular
meeting of the Ogden City Council to-
| night the report OF the special auditors
who were appointed to audit the books
| and accounts Of the city for the TWO
years ending December 81. 1905. was
| submitted The special auditors were
X T. Harris and c. r. Hollingsworth,
and the work was done, with the per-
mission of the Council. at the request
of the eXMayor. who asked that the
| books covering his second term be
audited 80 that he might be vindloated
| 1t was bluff, but Mayor Conroy took
1t seriously and prevailed on the Coun-
| ell to grant the eX-Mayor's request, and
| the report. which follows, much alb
breviated, shows that some people wish
they had not spoken.
Referred to Finance Committee.
The report was lengthy one and
| after a long discussion. In which the
| former Mayor butted in on the priv
| ileges OF the floor, and dictated to the
members OF the Council what action
should be taken the report was re-
| ferred to the Finance committee.
After the wearisome reading OF the
| report Recorder Critchlow, who had
| been frequently and very cXhaustively
attacked by the special auditors for
| inefilcienoy and for failure to comply
| with the letter as we'll as the spirit of
the law In the matter OF disbursement,
asked permission to go to his private
files and bring documents that would
makes refutation OF q number OF the
charges made by the special auditors.
He returned to the Council chamber
with the documents and read Il number
OF them.
Did Not Like Report.
At the conclusion of his reading Pres
ident Craig made an expression approv-
Ing this alleged rebuttal testimony and
said Good" 1t was apparent that the
Council didn't like the report
c. r. Hollingsworth, one of the spe-
cial auditors, arose and obtained the
privilege OF the floor. He alleged open
ly in the Council meeting that the rec
ordS brought into the chambers by City
Recorder Critchlow had been changed
since the auditing committee had made
their audit on that part of the record.
Embraces Complete Check.
The work began February 22 OF this
year and has continued In progress day
and night until May l. 1t embraced
complete check of the books OF every
one OF the city departments, and espe-
cially were the ordinances, resolutions
and orders of the City Council checked
with the various disbursements, and
the minutes of the Council were
checked against the warrant register.
The accounts OF each department were
verified and the records Of the City Re-
corder. City Engineer, Clerk Of the
Municipal court, Polltax Collector, Dog
tax Collector, City Sexton and Pound
Keeper were audited and reports sub
mitted. in conclusion the report makes
certain criticisms, suggestions and rec
concentrations.
Money Well Expended
The special auditing cost the city of
Ogden $500, but the money, as the de-
tails will show has been well expended,
The report reveals a most abominable
state of affairs, particularly in the dis
bursement of public moneys. In some
cases the Irregular payments OF claims
has been due TO almost criminal negli-
gence OF their duties by city officers
Many cases of warrants issued and
cashed without being verified are re-
ferred to.
In some cases there is a strong rc-
semblance to graft on the part OF city
officials For instance a claim OF A
3. Patton for s55 is verified by A, B.
Patton who took the oath as to It's
proved by A. B. Patton and is receipted
for by "A, B. Patton. but there is no
record OF what the claim is no re-
ceipted bill attached, no record that II
was approved by the Council, and the
account was not approved by the Nav
or. Patton is Judge OF the Juvenile
court.
Claims of Standard.
Claims of the Standard Publishing
company for public printing have been
paid and warrants issued without be-
ing certified. verified, allowed and ap-
proved, and nothing WAS itemized To
permit the auditors to verify the cor
rectness of the amounts charged. The
claims were submitted in lump sum
in each case They may have been cor
rect, but were never examined, checked
by the Auditor or approved by the
Council, which by law is required to
pass on all appropriations from the
public treasury. nor were the claims
verified.
Other cases of the warrants in pay-
ment of claims appear frequently in the
report where the amount OF the war
rant is greater than the amount of the
claim. The report says. in part.
Street department payroll allowed Janu-
City Council as being for $3.50. whereas
the warrant register shows the total OF
such payroll 10 be $543.70
Warrant No. $3.50. In favor of ! p
O'Neill. was actually for s3lJO5O while
the minutes OF August g. 1876 show the
amount authorized by the Council TO be
$3lJO.
Many Discrepancies Found.
Warrants Nos. 5l,seS 10 52O02. specja,
payroll, Police department aggregates
Sl3245. whereas. on August G. 1904 the
same was allowed by the Council for sI3o
Warrant No. 5lis5, in favor of ]. n.
Spargo, Is $3.50, but the allowance bv the
Council August l. 1904. is Si4.45
Warrant No. o2.5i9 In favor OF W q
Wilson, Is $3G5.E3. but we fall TO find tho
record of any allowance OF same by the
City Council. VI"
City Engineers payroll covered by war
rants Nos. 52.1S to 52,2Di agercpatfnp
S2120.30. we fall to find any record Of the
allowance of the payroll by the Citv
Council. '
Warrant No. 1896. In favor OF L. C.
Kelsey. sl2,0l6.11. Is dated December
1904. while the minutes of the CIty Coun'
Gil of that date show the presentation and
reference of the claim 10 committee
and tho minutes OF December ~, 1904
show the report Of the committee and tbs
allowance, and payment ordered OF the
claim.
A miscellaneous lot Of claims vas ,ota