The Courthouse Bond Battle
King County commissioners face a high-stakes decision on competing bonds from I.W. Maple and A.P. Mitten, sparking a debate over political influence versus business integrity.
The county commissioners have a plain duty to perform in the matter of the bonds that have been submitted to them by I.W. Maple and A.P. Mitten. The law requires that they shall pass upon the legal validity of the bonds and also upon the sufficiency of the sureties offered. If the bond of Mr. Mitten is defective, either by reason of technical inaccuracies or because the sureties offered are not satisfactory, it should be promptly rejected. The same is true of the bond offered by Mr. Maple. The question of politics should not be allowed to enter into the matter, and both bonds should be examined upon a purely business basis. The people and the taxpayers of King county expect the commissioners to do their duty in the premises, regardless of the idle talk of interested parties. Dr. Mitten in this matter is certainly entitled to no special consideration because he happens to be a Republican, nor is Mr. Maple entitled to any more consideration because he happens to be a Populist.
“The question of politics should not be allowed to enter into the matter, and both bonds should be examined upon a purely business basis.”
The tension between political patronage and professional accountability in county contracting remains a persistent theme in local government. Just as the 1895 commissioners were pressured to ignore party lines, modern Seattle voters continue to scrutinize the transparency of public procurement and the influence of political donors on civic projects.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.