The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-07-27
What MIR. Edmunds Saws.

The former bookkeeper for a hardware
company starts his report by saying that
the receipts from the water and sewer
bond sale outright were s1,O15, OD ifclud-
ing the $l5O0O premium paid for the bonds.
In addition to this sum he figures as re-
ceipts So. 81 of accrued interest due be-
cause the bonds weren't paid for on the
date of their issue, and interest paid by
local banks
In this So, 81 he figures 50 $50 p inter
est paid by local banks on the deposits of
the bond issue. This sum was paid to
Fisher s. Harris, city treasurer under the
Norris administration. who. instead of
pocketing such interest turned 1t over to
the city at the expiration of his term.
No such interest has been paid since the
| Americans took office
Mr.. Edmunds says in his report that.
according to the city's books, there is still
due from the United States Mortgage &
Trust company of New York, which ham
died the bonds, the sum of $685. 81 in ae-
erued interest, which has not been paid
Then getting down to the gist of the
job for which he was paid s1,19O he
launches into an attack on the Morris
administration of the city engineering
department He accuses that department
of charging up time pay rolls and cost
of instruments to a special Unauthorized
fund called the Utah Lake Improvement
fund" Later. he alleges. this fund was
charged against the water and sewer
bond fund. He says the books, records,
field notes and pay rolls of the engineer
ing department are in such a shape that,
despite his vast knowledge of bookkeep-
ing, he cannot figure how much was
stolen from the bond fund In this man
ner.
Charges Big Deficiency.
He alleges. however. that there is a big
deficiency in the waterworks storehouse
fund dating from Jan. l. 1904. The audi
tors books, he says, show that there
should have been on the date mentioned
SS9. 24167. whereas the books of the water
works department credit to the fund only
s29.1l570. This is a deficiency of SIG, 125 g.
which, the bOokkeeper says has never
been accounted for TO this day
He admits that this shortage existed
on Jan. l. 1904. That was the day that
Ezra ThOmpsOn,s administration was su-
perseded by the Morris administration.
If the shortage existed on that day ii is
pointed out. it was created before then, or
under the Ezra Thompson administration.
Big Cottonwood Conduit.
Coming down to the expenditure of the
water fund, after admitting the shortage
under Ezra's previous reign, the ex-book-
keeper points-out that ST6 81 had been
expended on the Big Cottonwood conduit
prior to the time the Morris administra-
ton retired. Engineering expenses for the
same period, he declares amounted to
sl7O66, y, or 22.371 per cent of the total
cost of the work. Usually, he alleges. the
engineering cost of such work is only (
per cent Other engineers say it will
usually average from 10 to 10 per cent?
On the basis of per cent. however, Mr..
Edmunds alleges that, instead of being
81 ,O66.12 for the period mentioned. the en-
gineering cost. should have been %,
an alleged overcharge of 81, 464S7
The total contract for the conduit, he
points out, was s24s,2749S. This was be
fore the American" party added $4,000
in extras to that sum for Pat Moran's
benefit. The engineering charges UP to
Dec. 81. 1905, he charges would have
amounted to e.929 per cent of the total
contract. regardless of subsequent engi-
neering charges. On the entire contract
ne alleges, the engineering cost should
have been but s9.S5Os7. whereas, If they
had continued at'the rate set by the Nor
ris administration. they would amount to
So, G94.04.
Kelsey Saves the Day.
Then. however, the ex-beekkeeper be-
gins to figure how the economical "Amer-
lean" city administration saved the day