|
113
<br />
<br />March 20, I~1~.
<br />
<br />said ninth day of March, 1917, during which time should any of the parties interested desire to
<br />submit further testimony that your commission would call said witnesses.and p~oceed~ with a fur-
<br />thor investigation of the m~tter, but if said commission were not advised within the period of
<br />two d~ys as aforesaid, the commission would deem that all of the parties had concluded their
<br />zespective case and~the commission would close the investigation and proceed to the considera-
<br />tion of the testimony submitted.
<br />
<br /> "After deliberate and mature consideration of all the testimony submitted your commission
<br />finds that the charges submitted by the said James A. Mulvey have not been sustained in any
<br />manner; that the record does not show that the Council, nor s~uy member thereof~ has acted in any
<br />way that is not consSn~ut~with the laws of the State and the ordinances of the City. Your com-
<br />mission finds that the Council, as such, are vested'with certain discretionary powers with
<br />ference to the ss~le of bonds, it being nowhere required that public advertisement should be made
<br />for a bid for the sale of bonds; thmt the Council, acting on the report of its Chairman ofI the
<br />Department of Finance, exercised such discretion, and your commission cs~u find no instance of
<br />that discretion having been abused. Your commission further finds that the Clerk of ~he Council
<br />has not been in any way remiss in his duty; that he acted~in the ministerial cap~city of Clerk,
<br />amd carried out the order of his superior body, to-w~t: The Council of'the City ~of Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> "Your commission would be pleased to have its findings reviewed by a~y court, or body to
<br />be mppointed by the court, and is confident that such review wouid result in the support of the
<br />findings of your commission.
<br />
<br /> "Your commission having discharged its full duty to the public and to the COuncil, as well
<br />as to the individual parties involved, would respectfully suggest to the Council that Miss Elsie
<br />Bunting rendered valuable services in the way of m~king out the stenographic record in this mat-
<br />ter, a~d woutdmost respectfully recommend ~hat she be properly compensated, the amount of which
<br />compensation is left to the discretion of the Council. Your commission further recommends that
<br />a suitable allowance be made Miss Gladys Clements who prepared the report of your c0mmission.
<br />
<br /> "All of which is most respectfully submitted this s~venteenth day of Ms~rch, 191~.
<br />
<br /> "W. C'. Corbitt,
<br /> "Richard J. Davis,
<br /> "S. T. ~ontague.~
<br />
<br /> On motion, the report~together with the sSenographic record submitted,
<br />and the Commissioners thanked for their valuable services in this matter.
<br />
<br />was ordered to file;
<br />
<br /> The suggestion of the Commissioners-that Miss Elsie Bunting be paid for the stenogr~ohic
<br />record, and Miss Gl~d~ Olements for writing the report, in this matter, was referred to the
<br />Finance Department.
<br />
<br />The following communication was rossi from the Commissioner of the Revenue:
<br />
<br /> "Portsmouth, Va., March 2Otb, 1917.
<br /> "The Hon. City Council.
<br /> "Gentlemen:-- The report of Mr. Eobert J. Walker, Expert Accountant,
<br />who has just complete~ an mudit of the City's book says:-
<br />
<br /> "~The land and proper~y books mhd records in the office of the Commissioner of the Revenue
<br />were mli examined.
<br />
<br /> "'The assessment books were ad, ed and m few clerical errors discovered which have been cor-
<br />rected, wi~h the exception of an omitted assessment of the Norfolk & Portsmouth Trmction Co.,
<br />of $2,250.00, which the Commissioner will include in the 1917 levy.
<br />
<br /> "'More care should be t~ken with the license records. While there was not much difficulty
<br />in checking the s~bs ~inst the payments, some trouble w~s encountered, making it impossible
<br />in a few cases to actually determine from the stubs what amount the license called for. In some
<br />instances ~he stubs were voided s~ud the spoiled !~eenses presumably destroyed. To conduct this
<br />office on ~ strictly proper basis, all licenses not actually issued should be retained and the
<br />cancelled ones preferably pasted to the original stub.
<br />
<br /> "'I ~dvise insta&ling a record showing the n~me and character of license which should be
<br />pmid by the v~ious parties subject to such assessment. If this is done there would be no ex-
<br />cuse for a failure ~o collect all licenses due after the first one had been issued. As new ones
<br />~re'issued, the names of the parties should be added to the record.
<br />
<br />"'The following errors were found Which are chargeable to the Commissioner of the Revenue:
<br />
<br /> "'October Tth, 1915, License No. 2490, ~iine Forbes, correct amount $3.]5, Collector's re-
<br />port ~= ~=
<br /> ~).-~. This was due to stub being charged in such ~ manner that the Collector's stub wac
<br />t~ken for the latter ~mount.
<br />
<br />~ ."'~ay 12th. i9t~, LZcense No. 126~, F. H. Miller, stub in Com~nissioner's office chan~ed
<br />xrom $5.00 to $?.50, stub in City Coliector'~ office not changed ms~kmng ~ shortage'of $2~50,
<br />
<br /> "Replying to the above, mn the per, ca oovzred by_the exammnat~on, there were issued from
<br />Sy office 859~ separate~licenses, of a total o~ $164,D23.72.
<br />
<br /> "The examiner found one error of $2.50, and one of ten cents (.lC), making ~ total of $2.60.
<br />
<br /> "I have called on Er. Walker for data from which I would locate "voided stubs,~ and those
<br />"few oases~ in which he says he hmd difficulty with the stubs, but he informed me, that he h~d
<br />none. Y~t he says, 'More ¢~re ~hould be t~ken with the license records.'
<br />
<br />
<br />
|