The Captain in the Counting House
A legal firestorm over whether a retired U.S. Army officer can serve as King County Treasurer.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
On the 19th day of August, 1880, Chief Justice Greene charged the Grand Jury regarding Section 94 of the Territorial Criminal Code, which forbids anyone not legally authorized from holding a 'place of authority.' The office of Treasurer of King County is both a 'civil office' and a 'place of authority.' If the proofs disclose that George D. Hill is an officer on the retired list of the army, and is now holding the office of County Treasurer of King County, his case falls within the purview of the law and is indictable. The people, especially the taxpayers, are deeply interested. If the custodian of $40,000 of the people's money annually holds that trust in violation of law, they have no security for a faithful accounting. An illegal officer cannot give a valid bond, and the individual to whom the public funds are voluntarily entrusted without legal authority can only be held to accountability by an action for debt. People who know the facts do not take such risks. Captain Hill, with the aid of Attorneys J.R. Lewis and James McNaught, has attempted to rebut this, but Secretary of War George W. McCrary has confirmed that in view of the provision of section 1860, 'No person belonging to the Army or Navy shall be elected to or hold any civil office or appointment in any Territory,' the officer cannot legally exercise the elective office.
“If the custodian of $40,000 of the people's money annually holds that trust in violation of law, they have no security for a faithful accounting.”
This 1880 standoff over legal eligibility for public office highlights a perennial tension in Seattle politics: who is entitled to hold power and what constitutes 'legal' versus 'legitimate' governance. It echoes modern debates about the intersection of institutional power, conflict of interest, and the necessity of strict accountability for public funds.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.