The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-10-20
HOW COUNCIL GETS
RID Of CITY MONEY
Attempted Steal of American
Employees Matter of Record
on Books.
PERJURY IS COkD0NED
So Is Forgery of Name and Other
Violations of Law Over Water
Tax Notices.
PERJURY is CONDONED

While the taxpayers Of Salt Lake are
wondering just what disposal of the
loot is being made BY the thousand
pOllars-a Day party in control OF the
city's finances, there lie buried IN the
minutes Of the city council lew score
oieEerly hidden evidences OF graft
which serve as Illustrations OF Whefe
the money goes saying nothlns OF
such items as s2l 600 for repairs on
sewer that cost $4,000 originally, there
are little leaks. such as Illegal ap-
pr0priatiOns 10 city employees ana Po-
litical workers and family parties
one OF these items can be found on
the records OF the city council Tor last
July, in which an employe or the city
treasurer's office, according 10 the al
mission of the council, forged the sls
nature OF A. f. MOretOn 10 a Warrant
for SI20.25. and then per1ured hlmselI
by swearing 10 the forged warrant
Two weeks later the warrant was PAID.
Clerk Gets Cut.
OF course, the city employe who
forged and peTjured the original war
rant was not dismissed and prosecuted
Instead, the warrant was made out IN
favor OF the city treasurer, who cut
up the S120.25 and distributed the loot
among ~ persons. The clerk VINO
forged the original warrant, instead OF
being dismissed summarily or prose
cuted, received some $50 or more as his
share Of the pie.
It was al the council meeting OF July
20 that a communication was received
from Rudolph Aft, city auditor, say
ing that he presented herewith vouch-
ar for Sl20.e5 in favor OF A. 4. More
ton. which is unveritied."
Through the unfortunate bungle OF
the city auditor in calling attention 10
the "irregularity or the voucher, the
game was exposed, and the city auditor
was duly reprimanded by the council
Tor allowing such a thing 10 become
public. This reprimand came later IN
o err HLa1
committee. which said Because or
the apparent error on the face or the
voucher, il should never have been pre-
scented 10 the council by the city au-
ditor."
In other words. the council told the
auditor that he should have either
covered up the forged and perJured
warrant or devised some means or
putting IL through" so that the II
regularity would be concealed
Big Crowd at Trough.
The facts OF the matter which could
not be concealed were as follows;
In the first place, some seventeen
city employees and relatives OF city OF
ficials needed the money. so deal was
ribbed up whereby they could be "em-
ployed" by the city treasurer 10 make
out and deliver about l6.00e water TAX
notices. This work Is the dutN OF the
city treasurer, and comes under the
routine or the office. but the water
works committee was taken IN on the
that TIE council would give the coin 10
him al something like q cents a no
tice.
flee had made out most OF the notices.
A +. MOretOn, a son OF Councilman j.
b. MOretOn, who was member or the
WaterwOrks committee, was called IN 10
help out with the work, and he
earned lust S6O.69 Of the S72O.25. Then
MOretOn was made the goat Tor the
whole amount. A member OF the city
treasurer's office force signed More
toms name to the voucher and made
oath that the amount was due for serv-
ices rendered by him and that no part
had been paid, and the voucher was
turned over 10 the city auditor
some one in the auditors office hap
pened TO check the bill, and failed TO
find where any such appropriation had
been made or authorized by the city
can the attention OF the council 10 this
fact.
A F. MOreton was asked 10 explain,
and he could not give any explanation
Tor the very good reason, as he said,
that he did not sign his name or swear
10 the warrant, and, moreover, he could
not swear 10 il. because he knew that
the S72O.25 was not due him
Makes Explanation.
The explanation made by the city
council after a special and stormy ses-
sion Of the WaterwOrks COMMITTEES,
came in the form OF report. which
read IS IOlioWs-
Your committee, 10 whom the bill
drawn in favor OF A. Z. MOreton for
Sl4U..5 Tor writing ana delivering 1891
water tax notices was referred, begs
TO report.
I'VE find that although the amount
OF the bill is correct, yet its presenta-
tiOn in the name OF A E MOreton Is
not only erroneous. buzz is unjust 10 Mr..
AoretOn.
The presentation OF the bill in his
name is irregular. as tie bill was made
out and presented without the knowl-
edge or consent of Mr.. MoretOn, by the
treasurer's office, after being sworn 70
in the name OF Mr.. MOretOn by an en-
ploye in the treasurer's office, who eN-
cerded his authority. Because of this
apparent error in the face OF the bill =
should never have been presented 10
lie council by the auditors office.
we further find THAI the presenta-
ton Of the entire bill in the name OF
Mr. MOreton is unfair 10 him for The
reason that there were seventeen per-
sons employed in common 10 him by
the city treasurer 20 do this work. Oi
the ST30.25. only S60.6s is due him. We