The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-15

OF slSOo. - and S225IS7 were made by war
rants dated january is. 1905. while tho
City Council allowed and authorized tho
payment OF Same on January 23 1906
Warrant No. ,OS6 for payment OF in
terest upon city bonds is for Sl0O3 60 while
the City Council minutes OF October 23
1905 show the amount TO he $3.50.
Method Is Condemned.
with which to critcise the very careless
manner in which the claims vouchers
and payrolls generally were prepared.
audited. certified verified md considered
by the City Council. approved by the
Mayor, and finally paid by the City
Auditor From January J. 1901. TO De,
cember III, 1906. 1856 warrants were Issued
by the City Auditor, and this will give
one an Idea Of the corresponding number
OF vouchers, claims and payrolls. We are
cent of the total number are complete and
free from objection
Here Is n Sample.
The Council has allowed such claims az
the following:
ogden. Utah, ....,... 10 Ogden City
Corporation, TO l.; J. Bucher. Dr. side
thing that appears on the claim.
The payroll OF the police department for
July 81. 1904. is not verified. nor audited.
does not bear the approval OF the Com
mittee on Police does not bear the sigma
ture of the Mayor has no notation there
on by the City Recorder. showing It's al
faFroIl after payroll, particularly OF inc
police and street departments, arc not
verified or certified at all
Law Clearly Violated.
Again, We find a claim, No. 55,2s1 f. W.
of Council held" This claim is not Item
lied, verified. certified audited allowed
by the Council, approved by the Mayor,
OF receiptcd.
Claim $685. w. L. Maginnis, says: Re
al hGa
whatever showing 1t ever to have been
allowed By the Council. and was not ap-
proved by the Mayor.
The payroll covered by warrants Nos.
As. $50 TO 800 was not approved by any
member OF the Council.
Claim 5l.lS9. Western Union Telegraph
company, Is for 81 but the warrant drawn
In payment therfor Is 81
street department payroll aggregating
Sll30 IL not verified
Another payroll OF $7lSG is not verified
Itemized Bid Missing.
Claim 81, ,269 is in favor of j. L Bagloy
and Is for $302. JS, and was TO pay the costs
recovered against the city in some of the
litigation respecting the waterworks syS-
TEN, An itemized cost bill was undoubt-
edly served upon the City Attorney. and
the same should have been attached to
the voucher
Claim 81 o4s Is in favor of George A
Lowe company for SIS but the warrant
was for $3.50
Cidliu NOt v SSlihCt.
Claim 6l,G63 American Bankers Daily
Bond news. Ss6. The claim bcaT3 no yeri-
ncatIon, no certiflcation and was not ap-
proved by the Mayor
Claim 50 s63, Calvert & Leek, $3.50, was
not verified.
Claims 81 s69 to 51,S7d. P ] Moran, pay
mcnts upon contract for doing certain
public work, are not verified, certified nor
approved
Claim 52.S75. j. P. ONeil sl62S5O. no
verihcations no certIfcation nor approval.
No Notations on Them.
Claims 50 $50. S2ssS and 52,sS4. ]. F. Hal
Yerson, City Treasurer. There is abso-
lutely no notation upon the face of the
claims at all. The Endorsement OF each
Claim 53.21, A T Hestmark. $3.50, Is
missing,
Claims 5326l to O3 80. inclusive. bear no
were allowed and ordered paid by the
Council. and they were not approved by
the Mayor
Claim 5S. .5O7, American Arithermometer
Co. 1915, bears no verincation or approval
Warrants 6S.4S9 TO E3.el2 covering hf-
teen payments to ]. p. ONeill and P. j.
works. bear no notation as to whether or
not they were ever presented TO, consId-
cred by or allowed and ordered paid by
the City Council, and were not approved
by the Mayor
No Receipt Attached.
Nl9ln 1880 is IN laNor OIL w llll5m IlaS-
mann. $50, being salary. Tho warrant is
not in the Auditors office and there is no
receipt attached TO tho voucher,
Claim Als2, ]. f; Bagley. $40, litigation
proved and no receipt for any of the
items OF expense attached to the voucher.
Claim S50i0. A, B. Patton. $50, was
claim states 1t Is for cash expended for
chair, There is no receipt for the cash so
expended. The claim bears no approval |
tlN4 nN md Il akrasr l4g.
1t was ever allowed by the Council.
Nothing but Patton.
Claim S5.442, a. b Patton. SIS The
claim Is verified by a. b. Patton. ap-
proved by a, B. Patton, rcceipted for by |
A, 3; Patton, but bears no notation as to |
dered paid by the Council 1t was not |
by the Mayor and there Is no |
receipt attached showing the payment of !
the s55 In the first instance
Claim 5562l w. J CritchIow. postage.
s5 has no receipt attached, was not aud !
tied. was not verified. was not certified |
and has not been approved
, Claim 8; i4 = Farrar; $500 is not vori-
He'd, certified OF approved; no record as 10 |
Its allowance by the Council 1t was for
one horse for the fire department but no |
bill OF sale or any particulars or descrip-
tiCn concerning the horse are attached TO !
the claim
Claim 5i,Sis Sanitary. Street-Cleanlng
and Sweeping company. 1898, there Is alb,
solutely nothing on the face OF the claim
except the name OF the claimant and the
amount.
Not Passed by Auditor.
Claim a.379. Art Metal Construction
company, A90.20. was allowed. but prior
thereto was not passed upon by the City
Auditor.
Claim 51Si. a Power. S14.31. Tor freight
charges on disinfectantS. Claim was not
audited. certified. verified or approved
and the freight expense bill is not at
ached TO the voucher.
Claim SIS 9l5 Meta Stair $3.50 nfteen
lays work In City Recorders office
Claim was not audited, approved, Vcrl-
fed or certified.
Claim 55s24 Fred C. Nalsbitt, sl5l. 20:
nothing else appears upon the fact of the
voucher.
Claim 55.407. Charles r. Critchlow. SEQ.
Tor assisting Recorder and Auditor dur
ng 1906 bears no notation as to whether
Dr not II was ever allowed and ordered
paid by the City Council, and was not ap-
proved by the Mayor
The Gre department payroll for Septem-
Der 30 1905. was not verified, certified
audited or approved. ond the same applies
% the payroll for the same department
for June 30 1906
Glasmann Censured.
The cloims OF the Standard PublishIno,