Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1914-09-11

be accounted for. The actual cost of
the duties Of the sealer in 1913 was
S315.64. The Office was created by
the legislature of 1913, and under
the law creating the Office, it is made
possible for two or more counties to |
combine as to this Office and thereby
use the services of the same person.
If the Office need be so costly as the |
estimate indicates, I should recon-
mend that our county combine with |
Mason in securing the services of a
sealer.
Since the city also has the services
of sealer, and in view of the small
size of the county, it would seem emf
nently practical to me, to appoint one
of the deputies or clerks in one of
the Offices for this position, and re-
quire the performance of the duties
of sealer during the times when his
services are not required in the office.
More help is required in certain of
the Offices at some times than at 9TH
ers, and rather than to keep idle
clerks in the Offices during the slack
times, why not put them to work on
this Job?
do not think that the increase in
the auditors Office is justified.
TreaSurer's Office in 1918.
The estimate for the treasurer for
1914 was $500; for 1915 it is
$4,000. AS compared to other coun-
ties, the treasurer's Office cost. too
much in 1918, when it cost IS, 457.18.
This is increased by $3.50 in the esti-
mate for 1915. do not believe this
to be justified. The facts on which
base my judgment are before you,
and every man must judge for him
self in this. as in all other cases. The
commissioners, in fixing the esti-
mates, had more before them than I
have at this time, and may have been
fully justified. From what appears,
however, the estimate is too high.
Clerks Office in 1918.
The estimate for the clerk for 1915
is cut from $1,000 in the 1914 budget
to $2,73O in the 1915 budget. This
Is about what 1t costs to run the
Office, from the experience of former
years, and about the cost of the Office
in other counties Of like size. The
reduction of one thousand dollars in
the total of the budget helps the APP
pearance of the whole, but as to this
item, this is really actual cost this
time. In 1914 more was provided
for than could legitimately be used.
The 1915 estimate is the proper one,
I think.
Engineers Office 1915.
The estimate for this Office for
1915 is the same as that for 1914,
$4.10O; $2.454 was spent by this
Office in 1913, and less in 1912. Not
being able to compare this Office with
others in the state, and having no
standard Of expense, hesitate to Of
fer any criticism. have no means
Of knowing how much the engineers
Office ought to cost. Unless a vastly
increased amount of work is to be
done by that Office in 1915, the
amount spent in 1913 should be am
pie, however. think the recommen-
dations made elsewhere in this report
ought to be considered in connection
with the expenditure Of this office.
Attorneys Office in 1915.
The estimate for this office for
1915 is about 5000 less than the &C.
tual cost of running the office in
1913, and also less than the cost for
1912. The amount seems to be about
right. II the attorney does not re-
quire the county to pay for assistants
he can we'll remain within 1t.
Commissioners in 1915.
The estimate for the commission
ers' salary. or rather per diem. for
1915, is $4,000. They drew $500
in 1913, as before stated, and the re-
potts from other counties indicated
to me, at least, that they had collect
ed very much more than they should
have received. l should think $4,000
ample for per diem of commissioners.
The law allows commissioners in
counties other than the first class,
having township government, $500
per day for time actually spent in
county business, and limits the total
to $1,000 each. We have 'gOne the
limit" under $500 per day rate.
Road Funds in 1918.
The budget calls for considerable
increase in road expenditures for
1915. Whether or not that ia wise
is matter of individual opinion. We
! can only concern ourselves with the