The Auditor and the Sheriff: A Public Spat Over Corruption
In the lead-up to the 1876 election, a public war of words between King County's Auditor and former Sheriff exposes the messy, opaque, and highly questionable state of territorial bookkeeping.
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.
M.S. Booth, Auditor, Seattle W.T., October 28th, 1876. To the Editor: I would not ask the privilege of making a reply to H.A. Atkins' 'Card,' in this morning's issue of your paper, were it not that he charges me with perjury. I am willing to stand on the records, receipts, and books in reference to his case with King County, so far as my actions are concerned, but Mr. Atkins has seen fit to make certain statements and charges against me, and of such a nature that silence on my part would amount to a confession. Mr. Atkins says, 'That at the August term of the Commissioners Court the Attorney for the Commissioners found the entire amount unaccounted for to be less than $700.' I have the original balance sheet before me, as made out and presented by said Attorney at that session, and the balance found against Mr. Atkins on that sheet is $1,770.07. The Commissioners having failed from time to time to get an explanation from Mr. Atkins and his deputy in reference to this deficiency in his account which he had bundled together under the head of errors and double assessments, this August investigation was held to force them to an explanation. In consequence of the chaotic state in which the books of the county had been kept, certain credits were allowed Mr. Atkins as a compromise rather than a lawsuit. I believe that there was a collusion between Mr. Atkins and the Auditor in the balancing of the books; that they had done their business in such a way that they could not understand it themselves, and had bundled it together under the head of errors and double assessments and derived a balance. The public will bear in mind that there are two papers in this case—Mr. Atkins' paper and my defense. Mr. Atkins in his rage has evidently these papers mixed in his mind, or I can hardly bring myself to believe that he would have stooped to the level of calling me a perjurer. His acting hurt in reference to this matter being publicly used to his prejudice is too thin for the sensible public. The most casual observer will see at a glance that it is a personal thrust at me, just on the eve of an election—the reasons for which I may hereafter have occasion to make public.
“The most casual observer will see at a glance that it is a personal thrust at me, just on the eve of an election—the reasons for which I may hereafter have occasion to make public.”
Local political squabbles played out via newspaper 'cards' were the 19th-century version of viral Twitter threads. While the stakes here involved 1870s tax accounting and sheriff-auditor collusion, the underlying distrust of civic institutions and the weaponization of 'transparency' before an election remains a constant feature of Seattle's political theater.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.