The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1915-01-29

commissioners, and Herbert Wing, act
| ing state engineer, We're the witnesses
called before the committee yesterday
| The examination took the form
! through most of the afternoon, of an
! inquiry as to the method of drawing
warrants and vouchers against the
! Carey act funds. Mr.. Jenness told of
| the two offices where vouchers are
made out--his office and that of the
state engineer Warrants are drawn
| by the state auditor after the vouch-
ers are approved. Mr. Jenness ex-
! planned that the vouchers drawn by
| the state engineer g5 direct to the
state board of examiners, and only a
! duplicate of each is filed in the land
| department, not to be passed upon
! Mr. Jenness said he was not as ia
miliar with the Carey act projects as
! the manager of the Carey act depart
ment, but he gave some of the general
history of idaho's experiences with the
! law
| Mr.. Wing was questioned at length
about the part taken in administration
of Carey act projects By the state en-,
gineers office, about his opinion re-
I garding the success or failure of va
| rious projects, especially the Big Lost
River, the King Hill and the Twin
Falls West End The committee wants
to learn not only what has become Of
] the Carey act trust funds, but what
were the underlying causes of the
| troubles that have given Carey act
projects and the state of Idaho an un-
savory reputation in the minds of set
tiers.
Having been an assistant in the Of
flee of the state engineer since 1904,
Mr.. Wing was selected as being prob
ably the best informed man in the de-
partment, since the death of State
Engineer King, on the subject of the
engineering work on behalf of the
state in connection with the projects.
He said that during the time the pro-
iects were most in favor, when the
Carey act field was opening up, in the
years 1905 1906 and 1907, the engi-
neers office had only one or two men
in the field, and that the Importance
of complete supervision and inspection
was not realized until the work had
grown beyond the department. Some of
the troubles project companies have
experienced, he said, might have been
obviated if the states engineering
force had been larger and on the
ground more continually during the
early years. But the greater part of
these troubles he added, was caused
by engineering difficulties that could
not be foreseen, either by the state
or by the company engineers.
Mr. Wing said it was true that
vouchers against the Carey act fund
were drawn by the state engineer with
out having been passed upon by any
board, as the governor deplored in his
message. But the vouchers were
sworn to and accompanied by sub
vouchers, and he had always supposed
that they We're approved by the board
OF examiners before warrants We're
drawn. This does not seem to have
been the case, as the vouchers exam
ined by the committee bore NJ sign Of
having been approved by any other
than the state engineer.
Occasion was taken at this stage of
the hearing by Koelseh and Randall of
the committee to read into the record
extracts from the governors message,
closely followed by their personal OPP
inions that the governor was badly !
mistaken in his view of the Carey act |
trust fund. Mr.. Koelsch also read Sec.
ton 1927 of the code, defining the |
trust fund" as the amount remaining |
from the original Carey act fund after |
expenses of administration have been |
paid With a little acquiesence from |
the witness, these members of the COM
mittee established to their own salts
faction that there never has been a |
trust fund.-Capital News.