Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1914-03-27

1911-between ten and eleven thous-
and dollars of this being bought in
1911, about $500 in 1912, and
about $1,000 in 1918. This gives
rise, of course to the question of how
the county commissioners happened
to give all of this patronage to BeaIl
" Company, less than five per cent
OF the road machinery having been
bought anywhere else, and this ques-
tiDn your committee is unable to an
sver.
Your committee would also like to
be able to answer the questions rails
ed by bridge builders and engineers
as to why any other company is al
most aiways unable to secure a con-
tract in Thurston county than the
Coast Bridge company of Portland,
Oregon. But your committee is un-
able to answer that question.
Cost Of Supervision.
Your committee, in looking over
the Auditors last annual report has
discovered that the report shows that
road district No. 8, for example, paid
$965.35 for supervisor and foreman
salaries during 1913, when sS,354.17
were expended as the general cost of
the work in that district that year,
while road district No. s paid $967.-
36.for it's supervisor and foreman and
only $4,734.77 was spent in actual
work on the roads of that district.
Your committee finds from this that
the cost of supervision Of the road
work in District No. 3 was, in 1913,
eleven per cent while II was nea' ly
twenty-One per cent in road district
No. 8, while the general average for
the county was little less than thir-
teen per cent. Here Is another mat
ter that your committee would like to
be able to furnish you a more detail
ed report on, but which it is compell-
ed to confess that it cannot do.
Your committees investigation to
date is based almost entirely upon
the minutes of the commissioners
proceedings and it has resulted in
giving your committee the impress
sion that the comfy commissioners
have handled the connty's business
in most slipshOd manner, and about
as they pleased. Take the circum-
stances surrounding the purchase of
the rock crusher as an example, and
you will find some rather peculiar
and interesting side lights on the
general way the county's business
has been transacted.
Rock Crusher an Example.
The commissioners minutes for
Monday, October 80, 1911, contain
the following:
ION motion the Board voted to
purchase from Beall & Co., one No,
2 rock crusher at $1,000. the same
to be paid for out of the following
road district funds in the following
amounts:
Road district No. 8 80 $162.50
Road district No. 49, 325.OO
"Road district No. So 325.00
Road district No. s. 4S7.50"
In the commissioners minutes for
April 8, 1912, little more than six
months later, no mention of the rock
crusher having appeared in the min
utes in the meantime, appears the
following statement:
There being due the Northern
Pacific Railway company for freight
on the rock crusher from A. M. Stew
art, the sum of $129.60, of which
the said Stewart has paid the sum of
$500 it is hereby ordered that
warrant for the balance, $54.60 be
drawn in favor of the said railway
company, on the general road and
bridge fund, the said Stewart to re-
imburse the county for the said
amount so advanced"
From the information your COM
mittee has obtained. it appears that
Mr.. Stewart was at that time sales
man for Beall & Co., and that when
they bought the rock crusher the
commissioners knew they were buy
ing it second hand but thought they
IContinued on mage al