Newspaper Page Text
CARNESViLLR ADVANCE
VOLUME y.
REPORT
Of Franklin Coun=
ty Committee.
K
To the Grand ,, , Jury of . Framuin „ .
County:
At the March term, 1903, of the su-
perior court of said county, the under-
signed were appointed a committee
to examine the records of the various
county officers and report to your body
at the September term, 1903, of said
court, jjy virtue of said
we have endeavored to discharge the
duty assigned u& by making a partial
examination of the records referred to,
and from such examination except as
otherwise -r'”' wn *-,« ,his report, they
appear* to be*Ve>. "and faithfully kept.
As the more particular object cefatem
plated by our appointment was doubt¬
less the investigation of the financial
condition of the county and ,the man-
agement of county affairs generally,
we have directed our attention main¬
ly to the records of the court of ordi¬
nary for county purposes, the ordinary
assisted by the county commissioners
being invested by law with the man-
agement and oversight of these mat
ters. This duty we have found quite
laborious and tedious, and we feel
that we could have profitably devoted
more time to it, but the details of a
more extended investigation would
overtax the patience as well as the
time of the grand jury, We content
ourselves, therefore, with an outline
of our investigation showing the sal¬
ient features of the administration of
our county affairs, wich paged refer¬
ences to the books containing special
features to which we invite the atten-
ticn of your honorable body for fur¬
ther information.
We have also endeavored to ascer
tain the law touching the administra¬
tion of our county finances and the du¬
ties of the various officers in relation
thereto, and we cite section and pago
of the Cede of Georgia and the acts of
the legislature bearing thereon, not
contained in the Code, to which we
also invite the attention of your body.
At the same time, we have taken the
liberty of making such suggestions
and recommendations as will, in our
judgment, if heeded, redound to a
more economical administration of the
finances of the county.
In the Bill cf Rights in our stale
constitution, section -1, paragraph 1,
public officers are declared to be the
trustees' and servants of the people,
and at ail times amenable to them.
Any criticism we make, therefore, of
the management of county affairs has
reference solely to the official acts of
such officers as we see them from our
standpoint of duty and not from any
carping or unfriendly spirit toward
them personally.
While we have made a cursory ex¬
amination of .the records prior to 1897,
wc present facts and figures generally
from 1897 and 1900—these being suffi¬
cient, in cur judgment, to show the
condition and trend of the manage-
ment of county affairs.
A brief reference, however, to an
earlier date may not be without in-
terost as showing that the taxable
property of the county has increase!
from a fraction over a half million do!
lars in 1S6S to a fraction under two
million dollars in 1903, a little less
than the taxable property of the coun¬
ty in 1861 before the abolition of
cry. It is interesting to note also that
in many features our county expendi-
tures have kept pace with the increase
of taxable property, as will be shown
further on.
As wo find no final settlement on
record of the tax collector with the or-
dinary for the year 1897, we com-
mence our review of th,e settlements
made between said officers with the
year 1898, which we find to be as fol¬
lows:
There are many miscellaneous items
of expenditure, varying in amounts,
not sat forth in the foregoing exhibits,
our space forbidding us to do more
than present the leading ones as indi¬
cating the sources of the heaviest
drafts upon the treasury.
Compensation of Officers for Extra
Services.
The law allowing compensation for
extra services of county officers where
no feer are prescribed is set forth in
sertion 5402 of the Code. By refer -1
to that it will be that all 1
ence seen
claims against the county for such i
services must be in writing, with aifi-'
davit as to the correctness and just-
ness thereof and submitted to the !
grand juriec at the spring t&rm. In !
our county, however, the regulation 1
or adjustment of such claims is refer¬
red to the board of county commis¬
sioners. (See arts of 1873, page 252.)
This transfer from the grand jury to
the county commissioners does not, in
our judgment, relieve s-uch claims from
being presented under oath as pre¬
scribed under the general law.
Ordinary.
Under the act creating the board
of County Commissioners the Ordinary
as ex officio clerk of said board, is al-
lowed the same fees as were formerly
allowed tho clerk of the inferior court.
By reference foTrwin’s Code, Section
355, page 80. it will be seen that the
clerk of the inferior court for services
rendered the county for which no fees
’wo Prescribed, is allowed an
\ ° n0t leSS t * ian Dor more
than han two hundred dollars per annum,
to be fixed by (h0 justjces Qf thp infe .
amT- at thG end ° f e8Ch yCar By
an rterT n,e ” umfini t0 < he fee bin for said
win’s A®* C ° de) 0 P8 sai *° <* 699 justices ’ fiection were 3645 author- ’ l ’
’
ted and required to allow additional
comr p rt» in certain coritingonciss
therein set forth,
Under either law, it would appear
that a more uniform and systematic
method is prescribed than that in
vogue in our county, By reference to
the fee bill prescribed for the Ordi¬
nary (see Code, section 4269, page
1040), said officer as probate judge or
Clerk is allowed a fee of fifty cents for
each order granted ® / by him, but is not
allowod any f( * fo or(iers chec ks.
,
drafts, or warrants drawn on the coun-
ty treasury, such acts being ministerial
and net judicial In their character.
By reference to the account* of
the ordinary pre; nted to and allowed
by the commissioners’ court it appears
that he is allowed a fee of fifty cents
for each order, check, draft, or war-
rant drawn upon’ ;he county treasury
where none i* pn scribed for the clerk
of the inferior o<--ut. It may be that
the accounts th JY rendered are but the
measure ot ihe t*crvices performed to
enable the commissioners' court to
fix the compensation. If so, we think
the charges, allowed excessive. While
the volume of business performed by
the Ordinary has increased since the
existence of the inferior court, the fa¬
cilities for performing it have likewise
increased. The use of printed station¬
ery has greatly lightened the labor at¬
tached to the duties of at’, county offi¬
cers-, and this is provided at extra ex¬
pense to the county.
Clerk Superior Court.
Wc find that the compensation al¬
lowed tlie clerk cf the superior court
or extra services is about the same
is that formerly allowed by the judge
jf the superior court.
Sheriff and Jailer.
We find that the fees allowed the
sheriff for extra services are generally
regulated by law and the commission
ers’ court have only to audit the ac¬
counts accordingly. We find that
much of the expense,attached to the
sheriff’s office and paid out of the
county treasury is to reimburse said
officer for money paid cut of his own
pocket in pursuing and arresting fugi¬
tives from justice in other counties
and sometimes in distant states as can
be seen by an examination of his ac¬
counts referred to in this report. It
will bo noticed that the fees of the
sheriff as ex-officio jailer are combined
with those of sheriff prop'er, which will
account for the apparent^ large sums
paid said officer out of the treasury,
and shows the diligence of said officer
in executing the law.
County Commissioners.
The board of county commissioners
was cieatcd by ’an act of Che-legisla¬
ture in 1873 (See acts of 1873, page
252), and except for auditing the
claims of county officers for extra ser¬
vices, they are Blit tbe legal advisers
of the ordinary in all other county mat¬
ters. They are required to hold four
sessions annually and may be conven¬
ed in extra session by the ordinary
whenever, in his judgment, it becomes
necessary. They are allowed two dol¬
lars a day for each day in session. We
believe said commissioners are acting
under a misapprehension of the law as
the number of sessions held by them
as shown on the minutes and the pay
drawn clearly indicates if our con¬
struction of the law is right,
It was not contemplated by said act
that said commissioners should receive
pay for services rendered when- not
convened in regular session or emer¬
gency se&sions when a majority should
determine all cases. It certainly was
not contemplated to pay both the ordi¬
nary and commissioners for the same
services, and if not construed and ad-
ministered according to Its intent and
purposes-, should be amended or re-
pealed. There is not now the neces-
sity for said board as existed at the
time of the enactment creating it. We
believe it would be good policy and
would so recommend that the proper
authorities have published quarterly
and annually reports of the finances of
the county for the information of the
people as required of the state treas--
urer and comptroller general. (See
Code, section 6902.)
We believe the people would cheer-
fullypay the cost and this could be ar¬
ranged at a moderate sum, as said re¬
port need be but an abstract of re
ceipts and expenditures of the county,
showing for what purpose the expendi¬
tures were made. The law already re-
quires an annual report of th| tax lev¬
ied for the various county purposes to
be published‘in a nefspaper, and at
the courthouse door, but we are in¬
fored that this has not been the prac-
tico in this county,
The publication of tho abstracts and
reports herein recommended would
keep the people informed as to the
financial condition of the county and
greatly facilitate the labors of grand
juries and their committees (if it did
not obviate the necessity of such com-
miitees) in the examination of the rec¬
ords, besides making the officers more
vigilant and careful in tffeir manage¬
ment of the finances of the county. We
think such reports ought to be made
under oath as is done in many other
placea ~
In our examination of the records of
the court of ordinary for county pur-
poses we find claims against the couu-
ty presented and allowed by the com¬
missioners’ court that arc not suSl-
ciently definite; that is, they bear no
date and are not otherwise specific
enough in setting forth time, place and
s rvices rendered; we think good busi-
ness methods should be demanded of
ail county officer*
^ a ^ p ® rs ^ ome -
We find that for several years past
an annual tax of $2 000 has been levied
f ° r ?°°l ° f th ®
county. Oi this sum about nine-tenths
” 3£i been exrcnded for paupcrs ’
home, the remaining (file-tenth has
been appropriated by way of donations
OARNESV1LLE. OA.. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 9. 1903.
to paupers that are not inmates of the
home. The number of beneficiaries
being nearly equal.
While thetreasurer lias not kept the
paupers’ fund separate from tke sen-
oral fund, we are of the opinion from
the best data at our command that the
amount expended for the support of
the paupers of the county, including
medical attention and miscellaneous
items furnished the paupers’ home at
the expense of the county exceeds the
amount levied after deducting commis
sions, etc. It Is the judgment of this
committee that the cost of supporting
the paupers’ home is excessive, if not
extra\ agant'. This, wo think, is due in
a groat, mew.re wich to the system of man¬
agement has prevailed since De¬
cember, 1888, as shown by contract
with steward at that tope wherein the
county agrees to furnish everything
except food supplies for the inmates,
including rent of farm, house for stew¬
ard, as v! 11 as for the inmates and al¬
low the steward cignt dollars per
month per capita for food supplies and
other minor details, as shown in the
contract, besides allowing pay for the
burial expenses of the Inmates.
Substantially the same contract ex¬
cept the per capita allowance which
has been reduced to five dollars per
month is continued unler present man¬
agement. On first vievf this seems
quite ranannahle. hut on i-loger exarni
liaiuhi alia au analysis of the same, it
does not appear to fie such a contract
as a business man makes in dealing
with private individuals. There is an
ambiguity in some of its features that
renders it susceptible of too much
elasticity.' We believe the county au¬
thorities inaugurating this system
were prompted by the best of motives,
biased to soma extent perhaps by their
sympathies for the unfortunate in¬
mates and made the contract too lib
oral to the steward at the expense of
the county! W e think, however, that
the syBtcm haa been tried long enough
for its defects to be seen, and some¬
thing better should take its place. We
would countenance no contract with¬
out humane provisions for the unfor¬
tunate poor, but we think these can be
secured at less expense to the county.
We also Believe that a mistaken kind
ness that, relieving the inmates of all
efforts to contribute to their own sup¬
port is neither humane nor charitable.
We think some employment suited to
their abilities and capacities should be
devised for them as conducive to tlieir
health and comfort. To this end all
-who are able should be required to
do moderate .labor at some
or raising
for their own use. This, it appears to
us, is entirely feasible, anl besides con¬
tributing to their health and comfort
would lessen expenses to the county.
We also think the inmates able to do
so should be required to wait upon
those less fortunate.
Tlie average number of inmates at
the pjiupcrs’ home for the past three
years is about twenty, t.vc cost of sup¬
porting these at the contract price
five dollars per capita, it $100 per
month, or $300 quarterly, payable in
advance, exclusive of the rent of the
farm. Compute the cost of food sup-
plies for this number according to con¬
tract, when, purchased at wholesale
prices as they should be, and alter
making a most liberal allowance there
for, it will be seen how large a margin
is left for steward for his part of tbe
contract.
We think we hazard nothing in say¬
ing that a large majority of the fami¬
lies of Franklin county, especially of
renters, are subsisting on Ies 3 than
the per capita allowUnpe, including ev¬
erything furnished and paid for by the
county, even to medical attention, ex-
cept in rare instances, and we respect¬
fully incite and request the grand jury
to investigate along these lines and
compare results with this statement.
In doing so notice that the steward
is not subjected to the uncertainties
of income incident to most private
families, besides the prompt advance
payments and the further fact that the
inmates are relieved of the leeding of
company incident to private families.
The inmates are, as a rule, aged
and infirm and are supposed to con-
sume less food than those ot more vig¬
orous constitutions.
The paupers- home has been in exist
ence loug enough to lie no longer an
experiment, and ought to be managed
upon strict business principles, with a
view to economy for the county, as
well as (lie w< ifare of tho inmates. We
believe that the present management
fails to meet this requirement and in
the absence of something better we
suggest that the proper authorities, if
only as an experiment, hire a compe¬
tent man as steward at a salary to
work the farm for the benefit of the
inmates furnishing horse, wagon
tools if necessary and purchase sup-
plies not raised on the farm at whole¬
sale rates, requiring a record of all ex¬
penditures and other items connected
with the management thereof. This will
at least show tho direction in which
reform is needed and suggest the prop¬
er remedy or sys'tem of management.
One of the elastic features of the
present management allows the stew
ards to make purchases at random, to
fill the county’s part of tho contract
which may not always be to the best
interest of the county.
Your attention is directed to the nc-
c0 »nts of W. W. Carroll, the present
steward, with T. J. Crow, Jr., present-
e d t0 ar >d allowed by the commission-
T'tZVr rthoiiBh'we ' (ln rJ S c el <
^ugh we find a i no evidence v on record
£ his oath and bond as such) am
JL with T T. Tr°rL Crow jT*! Jr m ’ some IZ capacity n
1,? 1 7 hKh U "‘accounts are
made. Without impugning the mo-
tfve s ot an y one connected with the
malt era referred to, we think it s-uch
an Irregularity as w:i* contemplated
by the legislature when it passed art
act iu 1898 (page 105, also to be found
in acts of 1901, page 91.) We find no
sanction of the cgmupisslonora’ court
to this irregularity bgyynd granting or
ders on the Lreasur/
We have said tMs contract is elas¬
tic in some of Its features, Perhaps
this will be better understood by ref¬
erence to a case in ’point. On page
545 of the minutes preceding the vol¬
ume in presmt use It appears that
a contract was made j' llli the present
steward for the year,., 1901 and 1902
at $ 1.95 per capita p< month, this con¬
tract to go into effer- December 25th,
1900, and would then-fore expire De¬
cember 25th, 1902, but by reference
to pages 148 and 155 of present book
of minutes the per capita allowance
it will be observed i changed from
$4 95 to $5.50 for the,last two quarters
of said contract. 1. t ,ot this a viola¬
tion of the constitut Cm? (See Code,
section 5904, page
On page 2G6 of pt reeding or first
named record the name of one pauper
to-wit, Steve Carlton, appears
twice in the same quarterly account
against the county, iui Item of twen¬
ty loads of wood at $2 also appears
in same account, Tuis last named
item is- not chargeable to the county
under the contract, and the first may
be a clerical error, but the steward
gets the benefit of it and the county
sustains the- loss. Under the present
centract the steward is to have all
paupers who die at the poor house
buried at the expense of the county,
which we find has been done at an ex¬
pense of $10 each, flip present con¬
tract at $5 pm- capita per month legiti¬
mately expires December 25th, 1903,
but it has been renewed for 1904 at
$5.75 per capita, and also contract
with physician for the paupers’ home
has been renewed for the same pe¬
riod on same terms as “yet afore,”
whatever that may mean, as we fail
to find any contract on record at any
time stipulating anv terms whatever.
This last item may b found on min¬
utes page 311 and is bdVond the scope
of our report, but we refer Io it to em¬
phasize the fact thrt the contract
should be made specific and definite in
its terms and strictly adhered to.
There seems to be no good reason
for any undue haste in renewing
contract.especially without giving pub¬
lic notice, as we feel pursuaded that
others equally goodiaud competent
would take the conwnfci for less mon-
AiternatTvc^F&ra Law.
As shown elsewhere in our report,
the information given concerning the
alternative road law will be unsatis¬
factory to ycur body or to the general
j I public. It do is, with however, the data about the best
we could at our com¬
mand. The books kept by the road
overseers were not accessible to us,
but your body has the right to sum¬
mons said overseers with their records
before you if you see proper to do so.
Inasmuch as a suit is pending in the
city court between the county treas¬
urer and ordinary concerning the cus¬
tody of the road fund and commissions
thereon, we suppose all facts neces¬
sary to a full understanding of what
was done previous to Marc-h term,
1903, of the superior court, will be
made manifest, and supersede any
further efforts on our part for addi¬
tional information to that already
given.
We would observe in a general way
that the operation of said law in it®
experimental stage appears to be far
from satisfactory to the people.
Whether this is due to the law it¬
self or to the lack of efficiency in its
administration, we arc not prepared to
affirm either way.
We are inclined to think, however,
that it is due to both causes. Of one
thing we feel confident, that unless it
is more efficiently and economically
administered i the future than it has
bfcen hitherto, we think it would be
wise to return to the old system of
working the roads.
Including the last levy of an ad-
valorem tax for the purpose of making
said law effective, the sum of $6,900
has been levied which, with the com¬
mutation tax, shows- that it, will be
somewhat expensive to say the least
of it.
We would suggest that if said law
is to be continued that a more com¬
plete record of all proceedings in the
administration of the same be kept in
a book to itself, showing at a glance
the amount of tax levied and collected
including the commutation tax and
from whom collected, how paid out,
and to whom, and for what purpose
paid. This book should be compiled,
in part at least, from the report of
overseers. The overseers should keep
correct records and make their report
in writing to the ordinary, giving the
information suggested to enable the or¬
dinary to complete hie record, and
then said reports should be filed for
future reference. This or some equiv-
alent method, if adopted, would facii-
itate the labors of grand juries in their
investigations and lead to better busi-
ness methods, which would forestall
and prevent entanglements.
As elsewhere stated, the scope of
our investigations proper, was limited
to March term, 1903, hut we deem it
j nothing amiss to give a passing ref-
erenee to the records since that date,
w , thprpin thp tax
f ^oueand! , . b „ * 7 on thp
or 70 cents on the hundred
| dollars for the various county
poses , aggregating $13,937.80. Under
, section 400 of tbp politioal code of the
state, the order levying county taxes
!a required to be published In a news-
paper and at lbe court honse door .
xhere are doubt i ess the best of rea-
gons for thi& , aw> ag it ig genera [ and
of almost universal application and
practice in other states as woil as
our own. The same may be said of t^e
law requiring the county treasurer to
keep separate the funds raised for
the various county purposes.
In concluaicn, wo beg leave to state
that while We do not claim this re¬
port to be complete, we think it suf¬
ficiently so to give a general idea of
the management of our county affairs.
Neither arc we vain enough to suppose
or to claim that it is free from error,
in reviewing so large a volume of
business, the accumulations of several
years-, wo sometimes find matters so
mixed that In trying to eliminate
matter foreign to the subject under
consideration, it would be a miracle al¬
most if errors and mistakes did not
creep into our work. On the other
hand, we have mado some allowance
in minor matters to offset such proba¬
bilities. We can say, however, that
we have endeavored to discharge our
duty honestly and conscientiously and
without fear, favor or affection to¬
ward any one, with the hope that our
efforts may not altogether fall of
the results Intended, to-wlt: A more
economical and better administration
of the finances cf our county. It being
our firm conviction that our county
administration is costing too much by
25 per cent. As with individuals, so
with counties—money judiciously ex¬
pended is economy; unwisely expend¬
ed, it is waste.
The different county officers have
been uniformly courteous and oblig¬
ing to us in presenting their books,
and if we have inadvertently done in¬
justice to any one of them we hold our-
selves reaj^y and willing to make the
necessary corrections in as public a
manner as this report is made when
we are made aware of it. We have sim¬
ply criticised their official acts, as we
have a right to do, and the diligent and
faithful officer seeking to do his duty
will profit, by such criticism.
Respectfully submitted,
A. J. MORRIS, Chairman.
J. F. GOODE,
W. J. PURCELL, -
• Committee,
We find no settlement made with
the tax collector for the year 1897.
By our examination of the settle¬
ment made by the tax collector with
the ordinary for the year 1898 we find
that the gross amount of tax due to
the county for that year was, $9,627:
amount not on digest, $186.98; railroad
tax, $511.15; making a total of $10,-
325.13, which amount was reduced by
allow* h-o? for ins.-jivant ij*tt
remitted and commissions, $369.04;
by payments into the treasury,
$9,956.09; ibialJlO,325.13, all of which
will more fully appear by reference
to settlement made by tax collector
with the ordinary on the 17th day of
February, 1899, minute book 3, page
294.
The settlement made by the tax col¬
lector with the ordinary for the year
1899 shows that the gross amount of
tax due to the county for that year
was. $7,996.32; amount not on digest,
$207.4G; railroad lax, $*11.50, making
a total of $8,615.28, which amount
was reduced by allowances for insol¬
vent list, taxes remitted and
sions, $408.50; by payments into
treasury, $8,206.78; total $8,616.28;
all of which will more fully appear by
reference to settlement made by tax
collector with' the ordinary on the 20th
day of February, 1900, minute book 3,
page 477.
By our examination of the
ment made by the tax collector with
the ordinary for the year 1900, we
that the gross amount oi tax due to
the county for that year was, $7,
964.65; amount not on digest, $325.04;
railroad tax, $410.31, making a
of $8,700.31, which amount was re¬
duced by allowances for insolvent list
taxes remitted and commissions,
$380.53; by payments into the treas¬
ury, $8,319!78. Total, $8,700.31.
All of which will more fully
by reference to settlement made by
tax collector with the ordinary on the
16th day of February, 1901. (Minute
Book 3, page 591.)
Tlie settlement made by the tax col¬
lector with tne ordinary for the year
1901 shows that the gross amount of
taxes due to tho county for that year
was $13,069,73; amount not on digest,
$314.49; railroad tax, $639.33; tele¬
phone, $7.78. Making a total of $14,-
031.33, which amount was reduced by
allowances for insolvent list, errors,
taxes remitted and commissions,
$490.1 1. By payment into the treas¬
ury, $13,541.22. Total, $14,031.33.
All of which will more fully appear
by reference to settlement made by
Tax Collector with the ordinary on the
— day of March, 1902. Minute Bool;,
page 149.
By our examination of the settle¬
ment made by the tax collector with
the ordinary for the year 3 902, we find
that the gross amount of the tax duo
the county for that year was $11
881.76; amount, not on digest, $348.69;
railroad tax, $560.61; Southern Ex-
press Company, $7.22; Western Union
Telegraph Company, 32c; C. and L.
Telephone Co., 58c. Total, $12,799.18,
which amount, was reduced by allow-
ances for insolvent list, taxes remitted,
errors and commissions, $424.68; by
payments into the treasury, $12,374.50.
Total, $12,799.18, all of which is more
fully explained by reference to the set
tlement of tax collector with the or¬
dinary on the 23rd day of March,
1903.
We find upon examination of the
records that the clerk of the superior
court received as compensation for ex-
trn sprvif , es rendcn . d for which scr .
vice no fees are prescribed by law. be
ginning with tho year 1897, ihe
;lm „„ nts as follows;
October 15, 1899, to__min¬
uteg a m $
October 15 1897, to March 4,
1898 minutes page 160 .... 64.00
March 4, 1898, to April 14, 1898,
minutes page 107...... 18.00
April 14, 1898, to December 8,
1898, minute page 240 ...... 23.00
December 8. 1898, to December
8, 1898, minutes page 241.. 74.00
December 8, 1898, to April 13,
1899, minutes page 286 .... 40.00
April 13, 1899, to April 3, 1900,
minutes page 416 .....,.... 53.10
April 3, 1900, to December 4,
1900, minutes page 520 ...... 76.10
December 4, 1900, to April 16,
1901, minutes page 588 .... 50.10
April 10, 1901, to October 1,
1901, minutes page 49 ...... 42.40
October 1, 1901, to April 1. 1902,
minutes page 129 .......... 42.00
April 1, 1902, to April 22, 1902,
minutes page 134 ........... 10.30
April 22, 1902, to July 21, 1902,
minutes page 163 ........ 13.60
July 21, 1902, to October 19,
1902, minutes page 192 ..... 44.90
October 19, 1902, to November
5, 1902, minutes page 200 ... 13.70
November 5, 1902, to January
27, 1903, minutes page 233 .. 10.40
January 27, 1903, to April 4,
1903, minutes page 260 .... 53.56
Total for the above named
years .$660.35
We find upon examination of the rec¬
ords' that the sheriff beginning with
the year 1897, received on dates be¬
low giving the following amounts:
Jan. 1, 1897, to Feb. 15, 1897,
page 37 ............... $ 108.17
Feb. 15,1897, to March 2, 1897
page 51 ................ 75.80
Mch. 2, 1897, to May 5, 1897
page 66 ............... 120.09
May 5, 1897, to July 2, 1897
page 85 ............... 67.70
July 2, 1897, to Aug. 2, 1897,
page 92............ ,.. 125.90
to 31, 1897
page 100 ................ 151.78
Aug. 31, 181)7, to Sept. 7, 3897
page 104 ..........*... 19.90
Sept. 7, 1897, to Sept. 23, 1897
page 107.......'........ 30.00
Sept. 23 1897, to Oct. 5, 1897
page 113 ................ 140.45
October 5, 1897, page 115.. 29.70
--to November 1, 1897,
page 119 ................ 67.35
Nov. 1, 1897, to Nov. 30, 1897,
page 125................ 90.40
Nov. 30, 1897, to Jan. 4, 1898,
page 134................ 64.34
Total amount for 3897 ....$1,091.58
SHERIFF.
Ian. 4. 189$, to Feb. 7, 1898,
page 145 $ i.21.67
Feb. 7 to - page 153.... 62.55
— to April 12, 1898, page
165 252.78
April 12, 1898, to May 2, 1898,
page 169 .......... .... 9.84
May 2, 1898, to May 31, 1898,
page 174 .............. 44.60
May 31, 1898, to July 2, 1898,
page 182 .............. 77.04
July 2, 1898, to August 2, 1898,
page 191................ 71.50
Aug. 2, 1898, to Sept. 5, 1«98,
page 202 ................ 54.75
Sept. 5, 1898, to Sept. 26, 1898,
page 212 ................ 57.70
Sept. 26, 1898, to Oct. 1, 1898,..
page 214................ S9.31
Oct. 1, 1898, to Oct. 1C, 1898,
page 216 ................ 2.50
Oct. 10, K>98, to Oct. 31, 1898,
pago 221 ................ 32.05
Oct. 31, 1898, to D6c. Id, 1898,
page 246 ................ 130.90
Total amt. for 1498 ......$1,007.19
Doc. 16 t 18l/ci, to Jan. 29, 1899,
pag’e 263 ...... .,,. ...... 54.34
Jan. 29, 1899, to Mch. 1, 1899,
page 271 .... •. r •. 56.00
Total amount for 1899 ...... $110.34
SHERIFF.
January 31, 1899, minutes page
2G4 $ 103.17
Jan. 31, 1899, to March 3, 1899,
minutes page 273 ......... 83.77
March 3, 1899, to April 5, 1899,
minutes pago 282 .......... 76.50
April 5, 1899, to May 12, 1899,
minutes page 294 ........ 200.00
May 12, 1899, to June 1, 1899,
minutes page 297 ...... 81.94
June 1, 1899, to July 4, 1899,
minutes page 310 85.00
July 4, 1899, to July 31, 1899.
minutes page 323 ........ 58.55
July 31, 1899, to Sept. 2, 1$99,
minutes page 329 .......... 112.38
Sept. 2, 1899, to Oct. 11, 1839,
minutes page 344 ........ 203.00
Oct. 11, 1899, to Nov. 4, 1899,
minutes page 352 ........ 102.21
Nov. 4, 1899, to Dec. 7, 1899,
minutes page 372 ........ 123.05
Total amount tor 1899 .,..$1,239.67
Dec. 7. 1899, to Jan. 30, 1900,
minutes page 390 .......... 65.70
Jan. 30, 1900, to Feb. 8, 1900,
minutes page 394 .......... 102.80
Feb. 8, 1900, to March 3, 1900,
minutes page 397 ........ 106.33
March 3, 1900, to March 31,
1900, minu'es page 413 .... 143.80
March 31, 1900, to May 1, 1900,
minutes page 425 .......... 39.05’
May 1, 1900, to June 4, 1900,
minute page 434 .......... 112.30
June 4, 1900, to July 3, 1900,
minutes page 448 ........ 27.45
July 3, 1900, to .July 31, 1900,
minutes page 453 ........ 62.55
July 31, 1900, to Sept. 3, 1900,
minutes page 479 ........ 125.09
Sept. 3, 1900, to Oct. 6. 1900,’
minutes page 497 ........ 143.95
Oct. 6, 1900, to Nov. 3, 1900,
minute page 508 ......... 148.69
Nov. 3, 1900, to Dec. 4, 1900,
minutes page 519 ...... .. 77.34
Total amount for 1900 ....$1,154.95
to. 4, 1900, to Jan. 5, 1900,
j minutes page 543 $ 42.50
NUMBER 47.
Jan. 5, 190i, to Feb. 4, 1901,
minutes page 559 ...... 107.78
Fob. 4, 1901, to March 1, 1901,
minutes page 567 .’......... 130.11
March 1, 1901, tb April 2, 1901,
minutes page 578 ........ 224.30
April 2, 1901, to May 3, 1901,
minutes page 597 ........ ■17.95
May 3, 1901, to June 4, 1901,
minutes page 505 ........ 95.61
4, 1901, to July 1, 1901,
minute page 14 .t...... .. -, 109.10
July 1, 1901, to Aug. 1, 1901,
minutes page 21 .......... 87.75
Aug. 1, 1901, 10 Sept. 3,' 1901,
minutes page 30.......... 117.15
Sept. 3, 1901, to Oct. 1, 1901,
minutes page 42 .......... 231.91
Oct. 1, 1901, to Nov. 1, 1901,
minutes page 53 .......... 79.98
Nov. 1, 1901, to Dec. 3, 1901,
minutes page 64 .......... 102.08
Total amount for 1901 ....$1,375.52
Dec. 3, 1901, to Jan. 6, 1902,
minutes page 86 $ 83.32
Jan. 6, 1902, to Feb. 1, 1902,
minute page 98 ............ 131.35
Feb. 1, 1902, to March 4, 1902,
minute page 107 ...... 108:4*
March 4, 1902, to April 1, 1902,
minute page 128 ......►... 173.81
April 1, 1902, to May 5, 1902,
minutes page 138 .......... 54 1 5
May 5, 1902, to June 9, 1902,
minutes page 150 ...... .. 74.45
June 9, 1902, to July 10, 1902,
minutes page 160 ........ 79.87
July 10, 1902, to Aug. 2, 1902,
minutes page 165 ........ 150.05
Aug. 2, 1902, to Sept. 1, 1902,
minutes page 174 ........ 77.17
Sept. 1, 1902, to Oct. 3,190$;
minutes pago 188 ....... lOii.tS
Oct. 3, 1902, to Nov. 1, 1902,
minutes page 198 ........ 110.20
Nov. 1, 1902, to Dec. 3, 1902,
minutes- page 205 ........ 73.49
Dec. 3, 1902, to Jan. 6, 1903,
minutes page 225 ........ 121.50
Jan. 6, 1903,. to Feb. 2, 1903,
minutes page 235 .......... 150.87
Feb. 2, 1903, to March 2, 1903,
minute page 247 .......... 72.01
March 2, 1903, to April G, 1903,
minute page 268 ........... 124.8*5
Total amount for 1902 and
1903 to April 6, 1903 ..$1,692.60
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
We find that the county commission¬
er have been paid each as follows:
1900—
E. C. Vandiver $ 58.00
W. W. Stowe . 7.3.00'
W. II. Roach .. •67.00
Total for 1900 $198.00
1901—
J. M. Andrews $ 90.00
T. M. Looney .. 74.00
E. H. Osborn .. 77.00
Total for 1901 $241.00
1902—
J. M. Andrews • $123.00
T. M. Looney .. 133.00
J. M. Jordan 6.00
...
Total for 1902 $262.00
1903—
J. M. Andrews - $10.00
T. M. Looney . 10.00
. .
J. M. Jordan .. 4.00
.
Total Mch Sup. Ct. 1903... .$24.00
ORDINARY.
By our examination we find that tin)
ordinary lias received for extra ser¬
vices, where no fees are prescribed by
law for the years following, beginning
with the year 1897, as follows:
First six months (no dale),
minute page 81 ............ $ 100.00
Nov. 22. second six months,
minute page 123 ........ 100.00
Total for 1897 ............ $ 200.00
1898—
August 31, first six months',
page 200 ................ $ LOO,00
Dec. 31, second six mon(hs,
page 260 ..... .... 200.90
Dec. 31, service as clerk for
county commissioners, page
25S .... 12.00
.
Total for 1898 ............ $315.00
1899—
June 15, first six months, page
306 $101.00
Jan. 1, second six months, page
386 160.50:
Total for 1899 $261.pO
1900—
Oct. 5, page 497 $140.00
Dec. 7, page 524 184.50
Total for 1900 ............ $324.50
1901—
June 10, first six months, page
9 $194.65
Hoad service (no date), page 63 100.00
Dec. 17, extra service, page 89 214.50
Nov. 15, looking after roads and
bridges, page 56 20.00
$929.15
1902-1903-
No date, page 201 .. $138.00
Dec. 20, page 221 178.50
April, No. 137 24.00
January 8. page 229 66.00
Total for 1902 and 1903 to Jan
uary 8, at which time our in¬
vestigation closes, no further
allowance being made for ex¬
tra service previous to March
court, 1903 ................ $406.50
STEWARD PAUPERS’ HOME.
We find that the steward at Paupers’
Home has received for his service for
the following years- the following
amount, to-wit:
For fi,rst quarter, minuted
page 384 ................ $ 345.00
For second quarter, minutes •
page 417 .............. 264.IQ
(Continued on Fourth Page.)