King County's Almshouse 'Vindication' Came With a Taxpayer Bill

IS THERE A COUNTY 'SLUSH' FUND? A Third Letter From Mr. Redward on the Almshouse Matter.

The scandals connected with the building of the almshouse are still fresh in the minds of the people. The commissioners were anxious to order an investigation, and to that end appointed a committee consisting of J. C. Redward, D. M. Hughes, J. S. McLellan and C. F. Reitz to 'investigate,' each at a salary of $10 per day.

They also appointed J. C. Boyden for some service which is not specified in the record, and William Box 'to assist the commissioners in investigating the almshouse,' each at a salary of $6 per day. Whatever charges were mooted were made against the county commissioners as men, and not against them as agents of the county. In other words, it was the judgment and integrity of Mr. Fred Gasch, Mr. John Wooding and Mr. A. L. Rutherford that were questioned, and if anybody needed any vindication or whitewashing it was these gentlemen; the people of the county required neither the one nor the other.

Yet, after the 'investigation' and these immaculate gentlemen were 'vindicated,' the people were again required to foot the bills, which are as follows: J. C. Redward, four days' committee duty at almshouse, $40; J. C. Boyden, eleven days' service on almshouse investigation at $6, $66, expenses $34, total $100; D. M. Hughes, three days' committee duty, $30; C. F. Reitz, four days' committee duty, $40; J. S. McLellan, three days' committee duty, $30; William Box, for assisting the county commissioners in investigating the charges against the county commissioners in the almshouse matter, for examining the almshouse and comparing the plant and specifications in commissioners' office with the building, seven days' salary at $6, $42, and seven days' expenses at $2.50, $17.50, total $59.50; G. H. [surname unclear], detective service in October, 1893, $192.75.

Extended comment on these various bills is not necessary. They show upon their face that the people engaged upon this work were not in it for their health. The sums paid are such as a grateful criminal would pay for a valuable service, especially if the payment could be made with somebody else's money—'Ten dollars a day for committee duty!' 'Six dollars a day for some unmentioned service!' Six dollars a day and $2.50 a day for 'expenses' in 'assisting' the commissioners; and finally, $192.75 for 'detective service!'

It is currently stated that the 'detective' service was in consequence of a certain publication that appeared in the Oregonian, and which was to the effect that there was something wrong in connection with the King county almshouse, and so anxious were those honorable gentlemen to discover the author of that publication that they placed a detective upon his track, and squandered $192.75 of the people's money in the search.

That the allowance of these claims to be paid out of the county treasury was a perversion of the public funds to their private uses, and that it was impossible for the county to derive any benefit whatever from any of these expenditures, is, I think, perfectly plain.

If they may pay out the public money for a personal 'vindication,' what may they not pay it out for? If the county commissioners are entitled to have the county pay for their vindication, then any other person accused of maladministration of a public trust would be entitled to the same thing. Yet when Judge Sachs, of Jefferson county, was sought to be impeached the state did not reimburse him for the expenses of his 'vindication.' The commissioners of King county did not attempt to furnish counsel or assistance to George H. Hill when he was accused of embezzling the county funds. No one thought that the city of Seattle should contribute to the defense of Adolph Krug when charged with the mismanagement of the city funds. But in each of the instances cited whatever expenditures were incurred by the state, county or city was in the prosecution of the supposed culprit, and in the attempt to discover the evidences of his guilt.

How any man with any sense of honor or decency could have consented to have fastened the expense of an honest investigation upon the people of the county is, I think, past the understanding of the ordinary citizen; but if the so-called investigation was for the purpose of a whitewash and to cover up a series of malodorous transactions, it would be consistent with the character of men capable of such conduct to fasten the expenses incident to such a 'whitewash' upon other shoulders than their own.

F. F. AMES.