Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1912-07-26

well 20 do relatives TO send for them
rather than have them placed on the
county farms. all Of which expense y
aid and would nov take IN financial I
way. ia now paying the expenses Of
the county farm, and IN a much more
systematic and satisfactory way 10
both the county and the charges But /
In addition 20 the above. have seen .
defendants In misdemeaaor cases, lay /
out the fines assessed AGAINST them /
In fab with the money in their peck I
cts. whereas. now they pas them
promptly rather than work them out
on the farm Besides. 10 bar q zen.
denfy 20 deter certain classes from
committing the same oifense twice
after DO has worked ont a sentence
once. with but few exceptions IN
addition 70 that We are compelled 20
pay the defendants board at the rate
% go cents per day rhen De- lays u I
our % jail
~ the February term. 1912, Of tho
Commissioner Court. there vas
handed 70 the court by the clerk VINO
stated az the time that the party
Rh0 filed the same had requested Of
him NOT 20 disclose his name in roe
ferring 70 the matter, petition
signed by some - citizens and lax
payers. asking for al itemized pub
lished statement showing the re-
ceipts and disbursements OF the coun-
IS for the preceding NO years the
states eight years.. 10 be furnished
not later than March T. 1912. and
other Information And. + being on
Friday evening before court should
adjourn on saturday. action on the
same was deferred until the next
morning The next morning the COM
mlssioners reported that any number
% the signers 20 said petition had
approached them since they had adj
iourued. and stated that they had
come 20 the conclusion that u was in
tended 20 assist q certain party IN a
political way and NOT 20 consider II
for any purpose Bur the court. out
~ respect 20 those who hac no, seen
chem. proceeded 20 consider b., and
reached me conclusion that they
would employ an auditor 20 audit the
affairs OF the county from IT'S organ
ization 20 the present time. since one
or Two of the grand iuries had dis
ousscd the question with them, and
Instructed me- 10 find out what II
would cost. the length OF time II
would take. etc and report al it,
next term. and 10 so state 20 the re-
porters OF our local papers TOR the
benefit OF the public. which was done.
and my opponent quotes part OF
the interview had between myself
and the reporter, but not all. The
mem beers OF the court az once began
to hear OF statements from certain
source in effect that such a plan
was all nonsense and wou;c require
an expenditure OF too much money
and that there was no necessity for
such a sweeping audit ! had an eX-
pert accountant 20 come before the
court al its next meeting and make an
estimate OF the probable cost ana the
[ length OF time n would take. and he
repored that h would take some
/ eighteen months and cost from 81
500 10 $1,000 10 was evident that
10 do this az once would require an
expenditure OF an amount that was
not provided for Just then and II was
decided 90 defer the matter until
they determined whether the funds
would De on hand without embarrass-
ing the finances of the county for the
fiscal year but 10 was the opinion OF
the court that such an audit should
be made as soon a. provisions could
be made in a financial way The
plan is 10 have an audit made and
then each year thereafter. the pre-
ceding year can be- audited at a small
cost.
apologize for the length OF this
article, but 30 is impossible TO dis.
cuss the subjects intelligently with
out going into details to some extent
for what J have discussed with which
have been connected. want under
stood thoroughly W VI JETER
Advertisement