A 'Close Combination' at the Courthouse: Surveyor Accuses King County's Ring of Self-Dealing

There is one way at Seattle in which the people of King County ought to know that they have a prosecuting attorney, and that is by reason of the money they have paid for office rent. There has been paid to Mr. Fred Gasch, chairman of the board of county commissioners, upon the allowance of the other two members of the board, the following sums: [amounts illegible] on account of rent of office of prosecuting attorney, said office being in that part of the Union building owned by the aforesaid chairman. The rent is, it is safe to say, at least one-third larger than is paid by other attorneys in the city for accommodations of the same character. Although something over [illegible] has been expended by this time board, with the exception of Mr. Rutherford, who succeeded Mr. Taylor in January, 1894, in the building of the courthouse, and although his public duties could be better attended to at the courthouse than anywhere else, yet there does not seem to be room enough in that great building for the prosecuting attorney, and no place seems to be quite as well adapted to his convenience as the place afforded by Chairman Gasch. But what right has the prosecuting attorney to have office room furnished to him by the county? Chapter V. of the General Laws provides for the election of such an officer, and defines his duties and does not provide that the commissioners shall furnish him an office. The only provision relating to this matter that I am aware of is section 282, General Laws, which makes it the duty of the board 'to provide offices for the sheriff, the county auditor and clerk of the superior court and county treasurer.' No other officers are provided for in the way of offices.

I asked the board to pay the rent of one of my rooms while down town; whereupon Mr. Gasch threw up his hands in 'holy horror' and said: 'This is absurd; none of the former surveyors have ever asked this; they have always paid their own rent.' The bill accompanies: General fund warrant No. 13,513, reads as follows: King County to R. H. Thomson, Dr., for surveying — R. H. Thomson [amount], C. L. [amount], H. B. [amount], and signed R. H. Thomson, county surveyor.

The statute provides that the county surveyor is entitled to receive [amount] per day, and his deputies a just and reasonable compensation. I wonder if none of the former county surveyors have had any part of their office rent paid down town? The commissioners found no trouble in refusing to pay any part of my office rent while I remained 'down town.' They could read the law straight enough in the case of the county surveyor. What has occasioned this obliqueness in their vision when looking at the prosecuting attorney?

The county records show that a large part of the county surveying which rightfully belonged to my office has been done by Mr. O. K. Wegener, who is now a candidate for the Republican nomination of county surveyor, and who, it is said, the commissioners desire to be nominated. His office is in the Union block, and Chairman Gasch receives the rent therefor. Mr. Clarence White is also one of Mr. Gasch's tenants. He, too, has had a hand in the public surveys of this county during [illegible] years. When I first entered upon the present term the commissioners sought to dictate to me who my deputies should be, just as they sought to dictate to a certain other official whom he should appoint. Inasmuch as I was responsible on my bond for the conduct of my deputies, I claimed the right to make such appointments as should be agreeable to myself. Since that moment none of the members of the board have missed an opportunity of making my office of as little value to me as possible. What motive could they have had in naming my deputies or those of another? Was it not in order that they might 'dictate' them as they accuse me of having done?

In conclusion I desire to ask a few questions of the voters and taxpayers of King County. If the prosecuting attorney was not furnished an office at the expense of the county which he ought to pay for himself, would he have permitted the payment of the public moneys to the almshouse 'whitewashing committee,' and their et ceteras? If the prosecuting attorney had been independent of the commissioners would he have allowed them to have charged and taken from the county treasury the enormous mileages that they have charged for and collected? If the prosecuting attorney really desired to serve the people who have elected him would he allow Mr. Frank Twichell to retain the moneys he has taken from the county as 'purchasing agent' and of the building fund and on mileage to Olympia and other places in the state?

Taking into consideration all the facts mentioned in my four letters, is it not manifest that Mr. Fred Gasch, chairman; Mr. John Wooding, Mr. A. L. Rutherford, Mr. Frank Twichell and the prosecuting attorney are formed into a 'close combination' or 'ring' for the purpose of administering to their own purses by every means that their ingenuity can invent; second, to use their offices to break down those who happen to get in their way; and third, to do a little incidentally for the benefit of the county. In view of the fact that Mr. John Wooding has been so greedy in figuring up mileage, and has been complacent in allowing Chairman Gasch's large bills for rent, and in view of his action concerning the almshouse investigation, is he just the man to represent the Republican party as a candidate for the state senate? And in view of these same facts, and the record, is Mr. A. L. Rutherford a proper man to again receive the indorsement of his party for the position which he now holds? Would not the nomination of either one of these gentlemen be an indorsement of their course by the Republican party? And is it not possible that these men who have persecuted, and are now pursuing me with so much vigor, are actuated by no higher motive than that of hiding their own temptations to enrich themselves?

And lastly I submit, is it not in the interest of the taxpayers of King County that on September 4 there be instituted as complete a change in the auditor's, commissioners' and prosecuting attorney offices? — R. H. Thomson, County Surveyor.