The Powder River County examiner and the Broadus independent. [volume] (Broadus, Mont.) 1919-1935, 1922-02-17
GRAvtlED ROAD MONEY WOULD
Be "FR|TTERtD' AWAY, SAYS MILES

EVERY argument advanced IOr
gravelcd road as one Of the most Inn
pcrtant factors for the development O1
this country IL conceded by me-" sai1
Charles w. Miles this week when in
terviewcd by the Examiner. "but in
my plain capacity as a citi1en and
taxpayer ] am resisting the efforts ci
the county commissioners tc build
this road at this time simply for lack
Of confidence in them to handle such
q project. In view of past experiences
in road building in this county / AM
afraid the vast sum Of money now
proposed for construction. of this gray
eled road would be "frittered' away
and in the end there would be little
or nothing to show for it,
Miles with L. j. Wilson and W.. II.
peays are plaintiffs in a suit brought
against county officials to restrain
them from selling 100000 worth rf
county highway bonds. Judge 8. r.
McKinnon issued a temporary injunc-
tion to this effect last week and Oh
February rs will be in Broadus t.
preside at district court session to
either terminate the injunction or con-
tnue 1T as permanent.
There was no selfish motive which
prompted me to resort to litigation for
the purpose Of preventing the commits
sioners from selling the highway
bCnls,' continued MIR. Miles, "and I be-
lieve my colleagues in this suit have
the same viewpoint.
TN the past thirty months since
this county was created dyer $S6. 900 Of
public money has been spent on dirt
roads under supervision Of the board
Of county commissioners" continued
Mr.. Miles. "The taxpayers should .ha We
something to show for that invest
ment hut there is very little il any o:
that work which remains permanent
and most of it Is ready for duplication.
Even at the time the road work was
performed it was generally reported
that the county was being mtlchal
with the actual work accounting for
only about thirty cents on the dollar
Were the county commissioners to-
take jurisdiction and attempt to build
larger gravcled road project nothing
would prevent them from again at
lowing eXtravnEant claims for ROAD
work and inspection. The latter item
OF inspection Is perhaps one of the
biggest bones Of contention when 1t
comes to public improvements. The
county pays the original bin fer the
Ecation work and at that time it pays
the salaries wages of SCme one
supposed to be in authority or respon-
sible for the work performed. After
all this has been done the county COM
missic ners go on the job for inspec-
tion, entailing additional expense items
for transportation. mileage and per
diem salary. Their subor'linates in
the first place have or should have def
mite instructions from them as to all
necessary plans and specifications for
the work at hand. With these plans
and specifications the road supervisor; S
should make full compliance without
the necessity of the commissioners in
sCecting the completed work ! con-
tend this inspection Is unnecessary and
should be eliminated for it is one IT
the biggest items in overhead ex-
pense. 1t appears though that the
commissioners have the inspection priv.
ilcgc and that they use it as one OF
the 'plums of their office.
"ln event the bonds had been Sold
and u contract executed accordingly
the commissioners would have been a.
sea as to the next procedure. They
have not committed themselves as to
how they would build the road but I
have reason to believe that they
would have taken jurisdiction then.-
selves by having the county build the
read on the. day labor basis of COM
pensation. There wouldn't be enough
work to employ every man and team,
in the county and there would be riv-
airy between the different road SUPER
v:sors 1t is quite likely that tht
same road crews that worked last yea:
would be given employment on this
graveled road project, showing them
and their numerous relatives a part
ality that would discriminate against
others perhaps more worthy. The COM
missioners have shown antagonism t.
contracting for road work by refusing
last summer to contract for the Rough
creek road work at a minimum figure
and then doing the work under cer-
tain supervisor at price that will
probably total nearly twice as much
II contend that the commissioners
have not shown proper business pro-
cedure In regard to the county's roa
work alone. With such precedence
what would be the results IL they at
tempted to build a graveled road of .!
miles or less II they followed the same
methods? The county would hold the
payers of many thousands of dollars
dissipated and sauandered and very
little to show for the investment. In.
stead of a mile OF graveled roa aver.
aging $4,000 the expense to the tax
payer probably would be many time,
as much.
"The commissioners have allowed
road bills right and left without much
more than scanning the total amount
que. In several instances these roat
bills have not been properly audited
itcmixed: dated Or signed, yet the war
rants were issued without question. I
has been common report that roas
workers have always tackled the war
rant discount onto their claims and
doubt II much CT the work really wa'
performed - claimed and paid for b.
the county upon order of the commits
sicnsrs. In one Or two Instances an.
perhaps more. the read supervisor Ii
charge has hired men upon the under
standing that they purchase from hin
only the necessary hay and grain "a
teams. Again there 10 discriminate,