A County Treasurer’s Bond With Too Many Holes

The contest over King County’s treasurer’s bond turned up eighty sureties and a train of irregularities. John W. Maple, the successful candidate for county treasurer, filed the two bonds required of him. The county bond carried 116 sureties for amounts ranging from $1,000 upward and aggregating $79,000, or more than the amount required by law, and the amount was not objected to. The bond itself, however, was another matter.

To begin with, the sureties for the largest amount, Martin L. Cavanaugh and Mary A. Cavanaugh, signed by an attorney in fact. Their power of attorney, dated January 4, appointed Albert B. Cavanaugh of Seattle their true and lawful attorney to sign, seal and deliver a bond for John W. Maple. There was also a withdrawal. M. J. O’Brien wrote on January 18: “In looking over the bond for Mr. Maple for county treasurer I find my name for $2,000, and wish that canceled. I have notified the other parties to that effect.”

There were other peculiarities. Martha Hoenicka signed for $10,000 and justified in double that amount, while another surety justified in only $10,000. Some justifications antedated the bond, one as early as December 31 and one as late as February 2. P. and Hattie A. Tremper signed the justification, but Mrs. Tremper did not sign the bond itself; they were pledged for $10,000. The same was true of O. Rossi and Mary E. Rossi, who signed for $5,000. There were no witnesses to any of the signatures except in the case of half a dozen sureties who signed by mark.

Both Maple’s and Mitten’s bonds were in the hands of the auditor and subject to critical examination. The inquiry was to extend to each surety on each bond and determine his exact financial standing as shown by county records. The sufficiency of the two bonds would be passed upon by the prosecuting attorney, who would probably report to the board and recommend such action as he thought advisable.

The customary practice in this county had been for sureties to sign in the exact amount of their liability on the bond and justify in double that amount. Both of Mr. Maple’s bonds were innovations in this respect, but whether this variation was defective had not yet been investigated. The bond was referred to the auditing committee, which in return referred it to the corporation counsel for examination as to its form. If that was found correct, it would go back to the auditing committee for examination as to its sufficiency. Dr. Mitten’s bond had been approved and was in the hands of the auditing committee. The bonds of city officials reappointed at the beginning of the year had also been referred to the corporation counsel.