The Great Sewer Scandal (Feb 08, 1894)
City inspectors and laborers trade accusations over whether Seattle’s new sewers are built to last a millennium or are merely 'rubbish.'
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The whole of yesterday was occupied in the Cochran case before Mayor Ronald in taking the testimony of the employees of the board of public works. They all agreed that the brick used was the best they had ever known to be used for sewers; that the foremen were the most competent; the mechanics skilled; and the sewers the best jobs ever done in the United States. That is, all except Matt Brannigan. He expressed the opinion that the Front Street sewer 'isn't worth a damn.' F. H. Potvin, a foreman, testified that there was no time lost by the men and he was particularly pleased with the brickwork. A. L. Haley, an architect, considered the brick used far superior to Eastern brick due to the iron and silica content, claiming it would last for ages. However, Brannigan, who has a job under the same foreman, testified that the sewers have no strength and much of it is no more good than rubbish. He insisted the plan of the sewer was wrong, adding, 'I have often said that the outer course wasn't worth a damn, and I say so now.'
“I have often said that the outer course wasn't worth a damn, and I say so now.”
Public works integrity and the quality of infrastructure have been perennial Seattle political battles. While today's debates involve light rail and tunnel overruns, the 1894 focus on 'rubbish' brickwork highlights a time when city growth was literally built block by block, and the political fallout of a bad job could topple a board of public works.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.