The Secret Courthouse Bond Deal Benton County Tried to Ram Through

The question of whether the $125,000 bond issue authorized December 4 by Commissioners J. B. Clements and Alex McNeill for the purpose of building a court house in Prosser is to be delivered to Keeler Brothers on their bid of December 4, or whether the two commissioners and other county officials are to be permanently restrained, is now in the hands of Judge Grady, of North Yakima.

The case of H. A. Bier, of this city, vs. the commissioners was heard by Judge Grady in Prosser Wednesday and Thursday of this week, and at the conclusion of the attorneys’ arguments the court took the case under advisement, promising to render his decision at the earliest possible date. He indicated that no decision might be expected for at least ten days, as he allowed the plaintiff five days in which to file a brief and the defendants five days in which to reply.

Every disputed point in the case was stubbornly fought out by the opposing attorneys, with Moulton Jeffrey, of this city, assisted by Judge Mack F. Gose, of Olympia, appearing for the plaintiff, and Judge W. W. Zent, of Spokane, and E. A. Davis, of Pasco, defending. From beginning to end of the hearing the court house was filled with interested spectators.

The plaintiff’s attorneys attacked the bond issue on three grounds. They alleged, first, that E. C. Houston, commissioner-elect from the second district, had qualified, and that at the time the bond issue was passed Alex McNeill had no right to sit on the board as a commissioner; secondly, that the chain of adjournments from the regular meeting in October to December 4 had been broken, and that the meeting in December, if a meeting at all, was a special meeting for which notice had not been given; thirdly, that the chain of circumstances leading up to the December 4 meeting, the secrecy in which the bond deal had been framed, the haste with which it was passed and the terms at which the bonds were sold, were such as to entitle the court to presume that, if not actual, at least constructive fraud existed.

The first two allegations involve some fine points of law, and both sides quoted authorities to prove their positions. The defendants claimed Mr. Houston was never legally qualified for the reason that his bond had never been fully approved by the county clerk, and further that even had the bond been approved, Mr. McNeill would have been qualified to act until Houston actively assumed the duties of his office. The plaintiff’s attorneys, however, took the position, and quoted authorities to prove it, that whenever the parties with whom the commissioners were to deal had received notice that Mr. Houston had qualified, Mr. McNeill’s rights to act were annulled, although his successor had not actively assumed the duties of his office. They claimed that at the opening of the meeting on December 4 the county auditor notified the commissioners, Geo. Keeler, of Keeler Brothers, and others present that Mr. Houston had qualified for the office and that Mr. McNeill was no longer commissioner.

In seeking to prove that the commissioners were not legally in session on December 4, the plaintiff’s attorneys introduced as evidence the minutes of the meetings since October. These showed that the commissioners adjourned Nov. 11 to meet November 21 as a board of equalization. This adjournment on November 11, the plaintiff contended, ended the regular session which had been started in October.

The defendants sought to combat this point by a correction of the minutes of November 11, at a meeting on December 12, the day before the hearing opened. They cited law to prove that this could legally be done. The opposition contended that corrections of this kind were only permissible when the correction was made for the purpose of making the previous minutes speak the truth. The minutes of November 11, they claimed, did speak the truth as originally written by County Auditor Syford and approved at a subsequent meeting of the board.

While these two points were interesting from a legal standpoint, and if either is sustained by the plaintiff the proceedings of December 4 will be null and void, the real interest, however, centered around the third question, that of fraud. It was in attempting to uphold or shatter this contention that most of the testimony was introduced.

The first witness called was County Auditor Syford, who testified that on Sunday, December 3, Mr. Clements came to him and told him that a bond issue had been prepared, that the bonds had been signed by himself and County Treasurer Harper, and asked if he (Syford) would sign them. He quoted Clements as saying: “If you will do this, Monday morning we will put thru a resolution authorizing the issue, sell the bonds and then the sons of —— can holler.” Mr. Syford testified that he refused to sign the bonds and telephoned to Mr. Moulton to come to Prosser on the next train. He told what happened at the meeting Monday morning and furnished copies of the proceedings, together with copies and the bids for the bonds, which were placed in evidence.

Commissioner Clements testified that he went to Prosecuting Attorney Fristoe on November 5, told him he wanted to build a court house and asked him how it could be done. After investigating, Mr. Fristoe advised him to consult someone else. Then later in the month, after Commissioner Bash had gone home, he and McNeill passed an order sending themselves to Spokane to investigate concerning a renewal of the lease on the present court house. They went first to Pasco and conferred with E. A. Davis, who accompanied them to Spokane. There they consulted Zent and Powell and waited four days while the attorneys investigated as to what should be done to keep the bonding proposition from becoming known to the taxpayers until after the bonds had been sold. After the attorneys had outlined their plans, he and McNeill turned the whole matter over to them and came home. He admitted that he had never made any investigation of the bond market, knew nothing about the sale of the bonds, but thought that under the conditions the bid of Keeler Brothers was a pretty fair bid. He admitted that at no time had the matter ever been considered by the board as a whole and that Commissioner Bash had been kept in ignorance of the plans.

While Mr. Moulton was questioning the witness, Judge Zent interrupted to say: “If you are examining this witness for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not this bonding proposition was framed in secrecy, you are wasting your time. We admit that—all our plans were laid so that the public might know nothing of it until the bonds had been sold, because we realized that because of Kennewick’s hostility it would be impossible to put it thru in any other way.”

Mr. Clements admitted that under Judge Zent’s orders he had signed the bonds on Sunday and excused the action by saying that he was a slow writer.

Commissioner McNeill’s testimony was largely the same as Mr. Clements’. He sought to justify his action by saying that he believed the majority of the voters of the county were in favor of building a court house. When asked by Judge Gose how many voters there were in the county, he replied that there are 3,500. When asked how many of those 3,500 he had talked to, and how many had expressed themselves in favor of building a court house, he was rather indefinite in his answer. He thought he had talked to as many as 500, but didn’t know whether he had talked to as many as 1,000 or not.

Mr. McNeill admitted that he had had a conversation with A. R. Gardner in Kennewick shortly before the last general election. He remembered that the conversation was concerning the building of a court house, but he could not remember just what was said. Mr. Gardner was called to the stand and testified that Mr. McNeill had said that he was not in favor of building a court house at this time because the people are too hard up and because (Continued on page twelve).