Tombstone epitaph., 1921-12-18
STATE HIGHWAY ACCOUNTING


 During the first few days of October a committee app pointed by the Cochise county board of supervisors pre- scented report the board the condition of the high way accounts between CochSc county and the state engineer Since that time certain figures i'll the report have been questioned and Investigation of those items in the office of the board has disclosed discrepancies that demand at least adequate explanation by the state gliee Otherwise the charge :" often heard, that the engineer is going beyond the law in the adninStra ton of his office will he further SllbStantiated.
 In Investigating the question. the superviSoral com mittee able check the distribution of the paid from the 5 per cent funds of the county by of vouchers signed by the chairman of the CocSc county board. copy of which is still file the office of the body in Tombstone. The committee did not. however. check the individual entries each voucher AS suit the report is largely taken from the figures of the engineer and represent that officials financial views of the This constitutes reflection upon the committee for the reason that it had but mere three days get its data from the state engineer and to have traced down each voucher would have entacd amount cf work that practically prohibtve. It is to the figures of the state engineer added portion of the = per fund expended the middle section of the BSbee- Douglas paving. that direct our inquiry.
 Vouchers signed by the chairman of the Cochise coun ty board. show that $257 }6990 of the comty's per fund.- expended by the engineer upon this eight mile stretch of paved highway According to the figures he the committee federal aid to the tent of $137.6l.17 also expended this pavement making total cost of $}94. .1S1.6I.
 Federal aid least theoretically is apportoned Cor was) tie basis of fifty per cent On that theory. which followed in practice the middle of the paved highway should have cost approximately twice the of federal aid $274 2:;54. The vouchers against the 73 per fund show that S2o6990 was spent on this project.
 There is something str:n.,y out of point in the mat for the total amount said have been expended does coincide with the actual of the eight miles of pavement of record in contracts for the work which file in the office of the board of supervisors
 Mcl'cal & Dillon contractors .On the western end (2A of the project bid $10176 Oswald Brothers tractors. the eastern end (2B) of the project. bid s9S,5165 Both bids accepted and the firms did the work Another item be taken into consider atiOn ill determining the actual cost That is the cement In the of this item. the cost $lO20 $2O9 a barrel for 12000 barrels. The total accordingly; $27021233.
 Al this joint is interesting tIat th, figures of the actual cost $27021233 represent saving of $4, 121 from the estimate. which is here based twice the amount of the federal aid
 If we subtract the actual cost represented by the and costs, & from the total alleged cost represented by the amount charged against the project from the contys . per cent fund and the federal aid figures given to the committee by the state engineer find discrepancy amounting to $12451934.
 It would appear then. that the sevcntyfive per cent fnud belonging to COchse county. paid for all but $12 of the project and that the federal aid for the pro- jec less the foregoing figure charged against the project but has been diverted to other road other county other highway or building proposi- ton under the direction of the state engineer.
 COchise county has been convinced that its seventy five per fund its rghfl share of federal aid been diverted fro mthe county The foregoing figures appear to substanate the belief.
 Lacking adequate explanation, must stand con- vinced that COchse has paid for something it hasn't ceved Cochise county is vitay interested in what has become of SPA. 24.519.34.-Bisbee Review.