The Court House Frame-Up: Farmers Cry Foul Over a $30,000 Bond Deal
Benton County taxpayers say commissioners tried to sell courthouse bonds without advertising for bids — and that the prosecuting attorney helped fight the very people he was elected to represent.
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.
The farmers throughout the county, not excepting those living right around Prosser, are thoroughly disgusted with the court house deal. At the Pomona Grange meeting held at Biggam last Saturday, naturally the Prosser district was represented best, yet the only sentiment heard was that of condemnation of the underhanded methods employed, and the extravagant waste of money. The sentiment seemed to be unanimous that this is not the time to build a court house. We've heard the statement that the whole west half of the county was jubilant over the bond issue, but such is not the case, for the farmers who have the taxes to pay are about as fully disgusted with the affair around Prosser as around Kennewick.
Undoubtedly there has been some talk around Prosser of recalling Auditor Syfford for refusing to be a party to the bond issue frame-up, but if anyone is to be recalled, it won't be Syfford, but should rather be Prosecuting Attorney Fristoe. There is a plain way provided by law for issuing and selling bonds, buying real estate and building a court house, and if the county attorney couldn't advise the commissioners how to do it as the law provides, he should have made way for someone who could. But for some unexplained reason Commissioners Clements and McNeill wanted to sell the bonds without advertising for bids, wanted to sell them to one certain firm at a figure which cost the taxpayers some $30,000 or more in excessive interest. Right here is where Fristoe should have quit them if they refused to handle the bond issue in the manner plainly set forth in the law. Instead, what did he do? When the taxpayers whom he represents attempted to stop the raid on the public funds, he advised the raiders to get additional counsel to help him fight the taxpayers, and stood morally a party to the deal whereby Mr. Clements and Mr. McNeill took another $1,500 of the taxpayers' money and handed it over to these outside attorneys as a first payment for their services in fighting the taxpayers. We can't reconcile such action with the oath of office he took, and believe that his actions justify the taxpayers in demanding that he be supplanted by someone who will represent them faithfully.
“When the taxpayers whom he represents attempted to stop the raid on the public funds, he advised the raiders to get additional counsel to help him fight the taxpayers.”
A century before 'no-bid contract' became a phrase, Benton County farmers were already furious over public bonds sold to a favored firm at taxpayer expense. The fight over who gets to spend public money — and who is shut out of the bidding — is the same argument that plays out in every modern school bond and courthouse referendum. Then as now, the people paying the taxes tend to notice the backroom deal first.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.