Monte Vista journal and Monte Vista graphic-reporter., 1923-03-30
PROGRESS OR RETROGRESSION;
an Selfish Interests Politics and the County Attorney Dominate the
Affairs Of Rio Cande County?

tribution from the state. and allow
cd Rio 0rande county to have borne
the entire expense.
Attention should also be called to
the fact that the State Of Colorado,
At an expense on It's own account of
$ss.0o0.0o. constructed the Gun.
barrel road bridge across the Rio
Grande river.
In 1920 the county levy for road
and bridge purposes was mills;
In 1921. for use in 1922. and to pro-
vide for the construction Of bridges
across the Rio Grande river, in re-
sponse to the petitions OF tax pay
ers and other extra expense includ-
Ing cement culverts on State High
way Project No. 3S 1.-THE road be-
tween Monte Vista and Del Norte
and beyond). the road and bridge
levy was increased to s mills. OF
this fund however, for the cost Of
cement culverts constructed on State
Highway Project No. 3S. the CON-
missioners made application to the
State Highway Commission for q
refund or appropriation To cover
their cost. which resulted In the
later repayment to the commission
err Of the sum OF S4.S03.00. a.
shown in the accompanying report.
but again In the year Of 1922. the
road and bridge fund levy was re-
duced to 3 mills. which is the pres
ent levy.
Much has been said about the
cash balance OF $4,000 90 left by 4
former board OF commissioners for
use by the incoming board for road
and bridge purposes. Before this
particular board had retired they
had entered into = contract for work
on the Cunbarrei road and Del
Norte Project No. 100. in the sum
Of approximately $11s.o00.0o. OF
which sum Rio Grande county was
liable for the payment OF z6T. or
the sum Of @7S.O00.00. and for the
payment Of which sum no provis-
Ion had been made land this sum
In addition to other liabilities for
the payment of which no provision
had been made. and concerning
which the facts will be presented ut
hsne al
to note that all mention Of these
liabilities which this particular
board bsQueathed to It's successors
10 studiously avoided. The board re-
fsrred to In that OF the year 1920.
whose membership ix we'll known. In
support OF the statements regarding
the liability In the sum Of 100000
wished on the incoming board. ~.
tsRtion 10 called In the account Of
the road fund to the item payment
on prior year state highway pro.
jects" In the sum Of 3iS.ssl.(e. Bat
the sad part to relate 10 that there
10 still due the sum Of approximately
ei<.00e.oo. We believe the former
board OF comm missionsrs acted In
good faith. that the work was ueces-
sary. and ne money wisely expend-
cd. but the present commissioners
should not t,- blamed for matters
over which they had no control and
Of course their only means Of meet.
Ing this obligation IL by . tax levy.
But this should effectuslly dispose
Of the contention that the present
board have been negligent In the
administration Of any reserve left
by former boards and such state.
ments should not be the cause Of
further dissension.
Perhaps the question attracting
the most attention and which Il ths
most widely discussed and probably
most widely misunderstood. IL the
fact that warrants In the sum Of
130.S3o.56 drawn on the road fund
were outstanding ~ Of December
sist. lS?3.
Reference to the estimated re.
csipts aud expenditures Of the
County Commissioners for the year
Of 1879. and - shown BY schedule
~" Of the auditors report printed
elsewhere In these columns. Will
show all the sources Of revenue &C.
cruinG 10 the road fund. and tbs
totals Of the expenditures. From
this report Il 10 apparent that II
sii the taxes arising BY reason Of
the 5 mill levy In the fall Of 1921,
for U.s. IN the year 1879. had bssa
paid. there would not osiy havs
hssn no REGISTERED warrants. bat
cash balance II the road fusA To-