The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1912-04-07
EVERY OFFICE TO
Be INVESTIGATED
STARTLING CON DI o MS IN
CREEK COUNTY-S55,0oo SPENT
ON ROADS-NOTHING TO SHOW
CFrom The Oklahoman.J

Revenues of Sapulpa township,
Creek county, aggregating more than
10000 spent on roads by the town
ship officials. without a mile of first
class road TO show for it; irregular
tiles OF every kind. including dupll-
cation of payment OF claims Tor large
sums. and violation OF the state Law
in relation to nepotism, are some
of the charges against officials OF
that tow nship contained in "A report
filed Thursday. at the Office of State
Examiner and Inspector Taylor by
Deputies a. Scott and ". j. cole,
who made the examination of the
township affairs. The report covers
the period from November l6, 1907,
to February >, 1912.
The report and one filed short
time ago on the various county Of
tiCes OF Creek county, in which huge
discrepancies were shown have led
10 a petition from citizens of Creek
county, with more than 600 sigma
t1lres, asking that every office down
TO that OF constable be investigated
by the state department. A letter
from various taxpayers In Creek
county intmates that they would like
to keep some deputies from the eX-
aminer's office, as it is the only
method they have, apparently, OF
preventing extravaganza with publ"
money
The report declares that in allow
ing claims and issuinS warrants, 10
attention whatever has been paid To
legality. ltemlzaton, proper filing
or vcrlfication. Some of the town
ship officers, it is brought out, sery-
ed in the capacity of road overseers,
In addition to serving as township
trustees and highway commissioners,
and filed claims for such service, al
lowing and paying illegally their own
claims.
The report alleges violation OF the
nepOtism act, in that Grover Butch
er. son of Thomas Butcher, treasurer
and trustee of the board was paid
S43750 for services.
Only One Instance.
II is shown in the report that one
'claim amounting to $l,O36.40 not
only was duplicated in payment, but
that interest charges, added to the
original claim, brought the amount
winch the taxpayers of Creek town
ship really lost in this one tra1sac-
ton up to $1,227.35.
1T is impossible 10 say whether
this was matter in which the town
shin board was crminally negligent
or whether it was wnnul and mall
cious Suffice it to say the matter
should be thoroughly investigated,
the responsibility determined, anu
civil action brought against the con-
tractor, the board OF directors and
their bondsmen, and recovery made
by due process of law the inspect
ors declare in their report.
An instance is cited where James
Harris, a contractor. who seems 20
nave been in high favor with mem
bers OF the board OF township direct
ors. collected double price for
making fill, the duplicate claim
amounting to S915.S0. He collected
tor The work at the rate OF 80 cents
per yard, while the price at which
he had contracted to do it was 40
cents. And 80 cents was an eXorbl-
tant price, the inspectors say, since
another responsible contractor had
bid on the work at 2S cents per
yard.
In addition to exorbitant prices for
fence work, it appears that cor
tractors Were accustomed to charge
10 pc. cent extra for the use OF
tools BY this method alone tn
township has been bled to the eXten.
of S94e,S7 since statehood, all Of
which is illegal. and was, in fact,
only method adopted to hedge
against discount on the warrants
Aotion against bondsmen IS recon-
mended for the amounts thus lille
gally paid.
1t also is charged that County
Commissioner L. o. Shannon sold
lumber to the value OF 81 ,312.15 10
the township, while County Comm 5