The Mena weekly star., 1916-10-26

occurred to him to get an expert all
 dit, and in employing these men
 acting in good faith, it occurred te
 hlm that 1t was necessary. I do not think 1t would be for this court tr
 say whether it was necessary ol not. Even in the light that has beer thrown on county affairs by the re- bort Of the accountants. 1t would no
 he for this court to pass upon tho
 necessity. What has been done oi
 what has been developed is not q criterion, but the question is diC | the County judge, in good faith. al
 the time, believe that it would he to the best interests of the county that the audit should be made Viewed in that light, I do not think
 this court could say that it was ar abuse of authority or that he acted
 arbitrarily or capriciously in the | matter
 Had Right to Go Back Into Record.
 Now, in reference to the two
 clerks, the testimony is that the au- l ditors went back to the time they were placed on a salary basis, and
 were required to keep an account of
 the fees and turn them into the
 county treasury. They went back
 and examined the accounts for that period. Then. in the case of one of
 the collectors they went back some seven years, l believe, and probably | five years in the treasurer's office | Something like that I do not agree with the contention that the county i is not entitled to recover any fees that are due beyond two years. I do not agree with that at all. This | court would not hold that you could not recover. but it would help to re-
 cover if the officer anl his bonds
 men are solvent. This audit, if they existed, might have discovered
 a good many things. l do not know
 anything about that. I am talking now about the authority of the County court and the question of
 discretion. If in the discretion of the county court to show true con- dition of the affairs it was necessary to go back more than two years, do not think this court would say that 1t was an abuse of discretion. | Right along this line. Mir Alley, you have quoted what Colonel Bryan said about the rule for the conduct of public office, saying that officials should spend public funds as care- | fully as they would their own. I agree that that is the true test To any officer or person entrusted with public office that ought to be the 1 test. A public officer ought to be as careful about expending the public money as he would his own.
 Banks Pay for Special Audits.
 Going outside of the record I might say that National banks are examined regularly twice year un- der the supervision of the Federal government thru the Comptroller of the Currency, and the services are paid for by the banks at the rate of Si5 per day and expenses. In ad- dition to that a good many banks employ annually a good accountant to make an examination for their | own protection, even if they have no reason to suspect that there is a single irregularity. The bookkeep- CTS in their employ are the best in the country, but there is a great amount of business and many trans actions that must be handled in a hurry. anl mistakes are likely to oe- cur. The directors of these banks | in order that the business may be kept in the best shape, and that the bookkeepers may be the very best that can be secured, and to stimu- late the very best efforts for effi- cheney, feel it is their duty to pro- vide auditors in addition to the eX- aminations made under the author | Iity of the Comptroller of the Cur rency.
 Doing the Safe Thing for the County
 "The best banks over the coun- try are doing that. State banks are regularly examined under the supervision of the State Banking department, and many of these too employ private auditors to make ad- ditional examinations. l am not
 here to say whether this is right or wrong. but when men at the head of
 big business do that, can not say l that the County court is abusing his
 discretion in doing the safe thing for the county. where large sums of money are received and paid out every year. If you look at that from the standpoint that good business men do that, I do not think that this court could hold that the Coun-
 ty court acted arbitrarily or cor ruptly or capriciously or fraudu- lently in having this audit made. No Proof That Wisdom Was Lacking
 As to the lack of wisdom of this
 audit, whether it ought or ought
 not to have been made, that is not
 matter of concern to this court at all. The burden is upon the con- testants to show that by a prepon-
 derance of the testimony. l do not
 think that the proof shows that, and as long as that is not the case, It
 will he my duty to uphold 1t. It IS
 practically conceded under that de- cision that the County court has au-
 thority to make such a contract. and
 | do not think preponderance oi | the evidence shows that he acted capriciously or falsely and fraud ulently in making this audit, so the judgment of the County court in al lowing these claims will be affirmed
 or it is ordered that the claims be
 allowed as presented"
 |
 COTTON MARKET AT TOP NeTCH