The Normal School Was Cleared. The Unpaid Workers Weren’t.

OLYMPIA, March 6.—Special. Following is the report of the joint legislative committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the Ellensburg Normal School:

'We repaired to the city of Ellensburg, as instructed by the legislature, on Friday, February 22, and on Saturday morning, February 23, we met in the Normal school building, where we immediately summoned the complaining parties and began an investigation as set forth in the sworn statement of John Shoudy. We summoned and examined twenty-five witnesses, among them the trustees of the institution and many leading citizens of Ellensburg, and after a careful examination of all the evidence your committee finds as follows:

First—We find none of the charges, as set forth in the charges and specifications, substantiated, except that we find that the trustees had, as the erection of the building progressed, made some departures from the plans and specifications upon which the contract for construction was let; namely, that the foundation was made of rubble stone and cement instead of brick and cement, as called for. We are convinced, however, that said foundation walls are in every respect good and sufficient, both in material and workmanship, and that in making said change no wrong to the state was done or intended. We also find that a few thousand brick were placed in some of the interior walls which were not of the quality called for in the contract, but that by reason of those bricks being used no injury was done or intended to the state. We find that in the construction of said building minor changes were made differing from the original plans and specifications, but we believe those changes were made in the best interests of the state.

We find that the board of trustees consists of three representative men of the city of Ellensburg. We also believe that the charges preferred against them are to some extent the outgrowth of feelings of venom and revenge because of the refusal of the board to allow certain claims for compensation alleged to be due the architect and superintendent of the building, said claims being based upon a percentage of the contract price. We find that the board did right in rejecting the claims both of Mr. Nash, the superintendent, and the architect, for the reason that said percentage was figured upon each article of expenditure, such as piano, washing windows and floors, window shades, chemicals, furniture and every article going into said building, instead of upon the original contract price for construction. A percentage was also demanded by them upon money paid out for freight on various shipments of material.

We find that the bond taken by the old board of trustees, which let the contract, of which only one member is still on the board, was not such a bond as would protect material men and laborers in their claims against the contractor, and that by changing the site upon which the building was erected said bond was practically nulled, for the reason that it was never renewed so as to describe the new site. As a consequence, many material men and some laborers were unable to get their pay from the contractor. All of these men feel that the board failed in making an effort to protect their interests. We do not think the board could have done more than it did in this particular.

We find that the allowance made the board of trustees by the emergency act was expended in the purchase of furniture and necessary work upon the grounds and building, and that in the purchase of furniture and material, and in the contracts for labor, the board worked on a cash basis, and that the emergency certificates issued in payment thereof could only be sold at a discount of 12 per cent, and that the board for this reason raised the vouchers so that claims would net the respective claimants cash to the actual face of their claims.

We find that the old board did guarantee to several merchants of Ellensburg, who were furnishing supplies to the brickmaker, that their claims against him would be paid to the extent of the value of brick which the contract for the erection of the building compelled the contractor to take at the price of $7.50 per thousand, and that all such obligations were met and paid by the old board out of the contract price. We find that after the contracts and agreements above set forth were entered into two members of the board tendered their resignations, and that two other gentlemen were appointed to fill the vacancies, and that was the case when the new board completed the work and succeeded to the old board for the remainder of the building, but that the new board did not guarantee any further payment to merchants or any other person furnishing material thereafter to the contractor, and that no claim was made against the present board prior to the final settlement with the contractors, but that at the time of the final settlement nearly all of those claims against said contractor were in litigation and that the contractor was a guarantor or defendant in all of these suits, and that said board would not act otherwise than it did.

Your committee most respectfully and emphatically says that we believe that the present board of trustees of the Ellensburg Normal School are honorable gentlemen and that in the discharge of their official duties in constructing said building they were actuated only by a desire to construct a building that should be a credit to the state. We believe that they have done so. Further, that they have not, in any way, wrongfully received any pecuniary benefit to themselves by reason of their connection with the construction of said building.

Representative S. R. Nettleton, chairman. Concurred in by Senator Brown and Representative Gibson.'