The Prosecutor Picked Prosser: Kennewick Demands His Resignation
Benton County's prosecuting attorney tells the commissioners he is 'prejudiced in favor of Prosser' in the court house bond fight — and the Kennewick editor says a public official has no right to a favorite side.
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.
At a meeting of the board of county commissioners Monday, Prosecuting Attorney C. W. Fristoe announced that in the court house bond controversy he is prejudiced in favor of Prosser. If this be true there is but one honorable course for Mr. Fristoe to pursue, and that is to hand in his resignation.
We grant Mr. Fristoe, private citizen, the right to be prejudiced in favor of Prosser as against Kennewick, but we most certainly deny Mr. Fristoe, prosecutor, the right to be prejudiced in anybody's favor as against anybody else. Mr. Fristoe, candidate, neglected to say anything of his prejudices when campaigning in the east end of the county, and unfortunately many east-end votes were cast for him.
Evidently there is some misunderstanding somewhere. We have been of the opinion that Mr. Fristoe was elected to the office of county attorney. We do not recall that his name appeared on the ballot as a candidate for the office of Prosser's attorney. However, if this last named office is really the one to which Mr. Fristoe aspired, it is probable that as usual the county auditor got things all balled up. If so, the obvious thing to do is for the voters of this county to pass a nunc pro tunc order at a recall election and correct the mistake by declaring a vacancy and putting someone in who can qualify as county attorney.
After all, prejudices in the court house bond controversy are not prejudices between Kennewick and Prosser but between right and wrong. On December 1st Mr. Fristoe came to the editor of this paper saying that he wished the people of this county to know that he had had no hand in the court house frame-up. He said that when he had been consulted soon after the November election he had advised the chairman of the board that he did not believe the deal could be put over. In short, Mr. Fristoe wished to wash his hands of the whole affair and to make it plain that he did not approve of the methods adopted by the commissioners.
But now, when Mr. Fristoe has an opportunity to give the new board unbiased advice as to how some of the wrong doing against which he formerly counselled may be corrected, he says he is prejudiced in favor of the wrong. For any public official, and especially a public prosecutor, to become prejudiced in favor of wrongdoing as against right doing is indeed a serious matter. Any man who lets his personal prejudices outweigh his honest judgment or deaden his sense of duty is not fit for public office, whether such office be the nation's president or the town's constable.
“We grant Mr. Fristoe, private citizen, the right to be prejudiced in favor of Prosser as against Kennewick, but we most certainly deny Mr. Fristoe, prosecutor, the right to be prejudiced in anybody's favor as against anybody else.”
Benton County spent its early years fighting over where the seat of government — and the court house — would sit, with Kennewick and Prosser as rival suitors, and this editorial turns on the officials who quietly steered the money one way. The instinct is instantly recognizable today: a prosecutor, commissioner or port director accused of favouring one town, one contractor or one district draws the same question about whose side an officeholder is allowed to be on. Kennewick is still the county's largest city, while the county's official seat remains in Prosser — a reminder of which side eventually won.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.