King County Auditor Accused of Padding His Salary with Extra Jobs

SEATTLE, Aug. 26.

To the Editor: The question is often asked whether there is a courthouse ring in King county. Let us consider whether there is.

As to the auditor's office, Mr. Frank Twichell has been auditor of King county for nearly four years. It is his duty to know the law, and it is especially his duty to know it with reference to his own office and all those things which define his rights, duties and liabilities.

Section 1 of the general statutes of this state (Gen. sec. 31 of chapter 10, laws of 1891) enacts that the salary which is provided in that act 'shall be full compensation for all services of every kind and description rendered by the officers named therein.' The auditor's salary is fixed in that act.

I think it is apparent from the above quotation that the intention of the legislature was and is that whatever services are rendered to the county by a county officer (an auditor for instance), are conclusively presumed to be paid for in the salary which the legislature has provided. This conclusion is emphasized, if any emphasis is necessary, by the proviso following the above made, and which is as follows:

'Provided, that in case the salaries herein provided for are, in the judgment of the board of county commissioners, inadequate for the services required of the officers herein named, then the said board of county commissioners may appoint such deputy, or such number of deputies, as in their judgment may be necessary to do the business of such office in connection with the principal.'

This proviso would seem to justify the appointment of a 'deputy' only when the salaries provided are inadequate compensation for services required, and then to the extent that the officer—that is, auditor—and deputies together may be able to pay, discharge the duties of that particular office. It certainly was not intended that the auditor, or any other officer, should be so far relieved from the expenses of his office as that he could take extra pay and receive compensation for that extra service independent of his salary as auditor.

If the law at the time Mr. Twichell took his oath of office and first entered upon the discharge of his duties (at the very beginning of his term—July 1, 1891)—and about that time the board of commissioners appointed a lengthy list of deputies in the office, that he needed four of them to properly do the work of the office—the board, at the suggestion of Mr. Twichell, made the following order:

'Ordered, that F. A. Twichell be, and he is hereby appointed agent of the building fund, for his services as such agent, he to receive a salary of $30 per month, beginning January 1, 1892, and until his successor is appointed and qualified, provided that in the judgment of the board the services of such agent are necessary.'

That the commissioners had no authority to make such an order is not to be disputed; and among the reasons for this are the following: 1. The commissioners and the people generally...

[The letter continues, detailing that Twichell drew an extra $30 per month as purchasing and building fund agent, then another $30 per month increase when the building fund was exhausted and he took on purchasing for the county poor farm. It calculates that he drew about $1,000 in extra pay over his salary. It also describes how he was sent to the state capital as a lobbyist against a fourth judgeship, receiving $4 per day and 10 cents per mile, totaling $20. The writer argues these payments were unlawful and that Twichell, as auditor, knowingly issued warrants to himself in violation of the criminal code.]

When we consider the company of deputies with which the commissioners have so generously supplied his office, the liberal salary that he has received and is still receiving as the head of that office, his salary as 'purchasing agent' and his other salary as agent of the 'building fund,' his extra compensation for 'mileage' and per diem whenever he finds it convenient to go out of the city, it does seem as if this officer was and is using his office for all there is in it.

Can any one doubt that he knows, and has always known, as any one of his intelligence and capacity must know, that all of these appropriations of the public funds outside of his salary as auditor were and are without authority of law? If this taking of a salary as 'purchasing agent,' as agent of the 'building fund,' as lobbyist to the state capital, and 'mileage' on this and other occasions, be unlawful, and if he knew it was unlawful at the time he issued the warrants therefor to himself, then Mr. Twichell is not only unworthy of the trust in him, but he is, in addition, a public malefactor and should be punished accordingly.

Section 196 of the criminal code provides: 'If any officer shall knowingly issue any warrant not authorized by law he shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than five years.'

If this very versatile gentleman should say that he did not know that the warrants which he drew for his extra allowance were unlawful, I think I should be content to remark that a versatile cause of finding so many ways of getting his hands into the county treasury as this gentleman has displayed, has sense enough to know when he is taking what does not honestly belong to him, and when he is using his office to cover up dishonest purposes.