The Mena weekly star., 1921-02-17
AUDIT JEFFERSON
 HIGHWAY RECORDS
(Continued from Page 1.)

Goodwin and F. J. Goggins, S1,0OO
 of the first payment was retained
 by us to be used by us in any emerg- ency that might arise by virtue of
 the dissention that we were told
 existed in the company and that nually resulted in your appointment
 as receiver The second advance
 payment has never been called for as such.
 MT. Goodwin and Mrs. Goggins
 came to Mena before the second payment was due and stated to us ! that they wished to purchase a steam shovel ana made arrange
 ment to borrow S4,000 from the Far
 mers & Merchants Bank of Mena ! giving that bank an order on us to
 pay that loan out of the money due
 the Independent Rock Company
 January lst. We nave taken up this
 note and the balance of the $5,000
 less the amount paid to the Far
 mers & Merchants Bank, IS subject
 to the order of the Independent
 Rock Company, likewise the $l,000
 which, by agreement, we retained from the first $5,000 is intact in our
 possession.
 Tt occurs to us that the present
 condition of affairs in the Inde-
 pendent Rock Company is very un- certain both as it may affect this Road
 District and the bondsmen who
 guaranteed the fulfillment of the
 contract.
 "In view of that, we suggest that
 the contract be cancelled, the bonds
 men be released, and the $8,000 be
 returned to Road District No 1. If
 this meets with your approval we
 will be glad to receive any sugges- ton from you to conclude the mat
 ter i'll that manner.
 Yours very truly,
 Road District No. l."
 The commissioners personally ap- peared before us and explained the above transaction by stating that af- ter making the contract they learned that there was dissension among he officers of the Rock company and that the commissioners retained $1,000 of the first $5,000, placing the same to the credit of the personal account of one of the commissioners. The com misisoners have stated to us that the amount so withheld has since been paid to the receiver and this state ment has been verified by the re- ceiver who states that this sum in ad- dition to other payments was received by him on the 7th day of February, 1921, $4000 of the second payment due under the contract and an addi- tional sum of $2413 for interest Is shown by the account of the commits sioners to have been paid on January tf E'o,s Q. .fe, bank to apply on the note of the h. dependent Rock Company for the prin- cipal sum of $4,000 Records further indicate that the balance of the sec ond payment, amounting to $975.S7, and also the $5,000 due on the third payment, was paid to the Inde- pendent Rock Company on January 31, 1921. The receiver, however, states that these last two payments as we'll as the $1,000 due on the first payment, wer not received by him un- ] til February 2, 1921.
 We presume that this contract, if carried out, will effect saving to the district and we presume further that the scureties on the bond of the Rock company are good, but we do not be- lieve that the commissioners should in- cur the risk of paying in advance such large sums of money in any event and we are doubtful if this report should be approved until that contract is full filled upon the part of the receiver for the Rock company.
 The total amount paid for labor on the assessment book and for copies thereof appear to us to have been entirely too high, even granting that in addition to the original two copies had to be made and much extra work entailed on account of the difficulty in the sale of bonds, In our judgment this work should have been done for 50 per cent less than the amount ac- tually expended therefor.
 We find that practically all claims for travelling expenses are not item ized, generally being stated in a mere sum total, frequently even days and dates being omitted. Likewise the larger number of the claims for labor on the assessment books are not item ized. The claim of J. F. Hood. com missioner, is not itemiZed at all. and of that part of the claim of Ira o. Smith, commissioner, "for expenses. phone calls and postage, amounting to $344.65, there is nothing to indi- cate what such expenses were nor any particulars stated with respect to the number of phone calls nor what part of the claim is for postage. 1 The claim of Alex Coyle was origi- nally for $756.20, and that sum was paid him on October 23, 1920, but since that time he has filed an item lzed statement of this claim which reduces the amount thereof to S661 "A. | though 1t does not appear that this difference has been refunded to the i district. We understand that this dif- ! ference is by reason of the fact that m his original claim Mir Coyle in- eluded travelling expenses incurred by him while on duty in the county. which does not appear to be allow able under the law All the claims above mentioned except that of Mir. i Goyie should be referred back to the commissioners for proper itemization and in the event of their failure to furnish such itemization such claims should be rejected In justice to the commissioners it should be stated that none of them received any pay for time or expenses until October. 1920 and while the total of the claim in each case may appear high, yet we are satisfied from investigation that none of them has been adeouately or even reasonably compensated foi the time and money expended by hin m the interest of the district, and that they have spent much time and in cured considerable personal expense