Bisbee daily review., 1922-03-08

mat lne state enRlnGer, ThOS. Mad
 dock, caused $l2O,6lS.05 of Cochise
 county 75 per cent funds to be divert.
 ed to the Omnibus Bill and the gen eral state road fund, is the charge
 made by the Cochise board of super
 visors. The charge is substantiated by II. T. Cuthbert, auditor and ac- countant of Douglas, who was appoint ed by the board as snecial investi. gator. Cuthbert spent some days in the capital going over the accounts Of the state engineers department, so far as they effect Cochise county road monies.
 Following the investigation of the status of Cochise county's road mon- ies by special committee some months ago, a report was made to the board of supervisors. This report was made by J. B. Hart, John F. Ross and J. N. Gaines. The committee re- ported that much of its material had been taken from the state engineer and had not been verified. Shortly following the submission Of the re- port, charges were made in Cochise county by several men who have fol- lowed the road program in detail. that a considerable amount of money lad been unaccounted for in connec- tion with the construction of the mid dle link of. the Bisbee- Douglas pave ment. This was investigated and on the face of the investigation if ap- peared that there was owing the coun ty matter of $124,OOO.
 Boards Stand Outlined
 The state engineer then prepared another report and his chief clerk wrote to the board of supervisors. The report purported to show where the money had been spent and it al- leged that, in reality, Cochise county owed the state highway department considerable amount of money for work already performed. It was then the board appointed H. T. Cuthbert as an examiner to investigate the eS- act status.
 M. C. Hankins, clerk of the board Of supervisors, yesterday sent the following letter to the state engineer which sets forth the stand of the board:
 March 2. 1922. MT. Thomas Maddock,
 State Engineer.
 Phoenix, Arizona.
 Dear Sir:
 Replying to your letter of the 3rd inst, relative to our controversy over the 75 per cent Fund as apportioned 10 Cochise County and especially that part having reference to Project No. II, or what is known as the Risbee. Douglas Paved Highway, Sections "A" and "2B," you are advised that the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of yesterday, after receiving the report of Mr. Cuthbert. public ac. countant, have instructed me to take the matter up with you more fullv
 we agree with you that this con- troversy with reference to this mat ter mas been detrimental to road con- struction III this county. However, we take the view, that on numerous occasions, the Board or Supervisors nave made request for your depart ment to furnish an itemized state. lhent of the expenditures of our 75 per cent Fund on all projects author lzed by them in this county. All that we nave been able to obtain was az. gre@ate amounts spent and not an ItemlZed statement of all expenses ana for what purpose.
 Credit Is Demanded
 lhe Board Of Supervisors have in- 1 me to take the matter up "lth you reFative to securing a credit m our 70 per cent Fund in the amount pr Sl2O,61S.O5, which shows an excess spent over the amount authorized Inv me Board of Supervisors on Federal Aid Project No. II, for which vou spent in lieu of Federal Aid not beinp available at that time and in which you failed to credit the 75 per cent rund Of this amount when you oh. -ained your Federal Aid in the mount of $137,36i.71.
 MT. Cuthbert's report will show nat instead of you creditiag our 75 Der cent Fund with s12O61SO5 won 'redited Senate Bill No. 51 with S2l,271.24 and that the balance of was credited up to your general fund or what is known as the D per cent Fund.