The $17,500 Stare-Down at the Agricultural College
A former treasurer refused to release college funds, a Tacoma contractor claimed the low bid was skipped, and the attorney general said the appeal clock had run out.
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.
TACOMA, July 22.—[Special.]—The $17,500 belonging to the State Agricultural College, which has been locked up here for a year or more as a result of objections to turning the same over by A.H. Smith, late member and treasurer of the board of regents, principally on the ground that his successor was not legally appointed, will probably be placed at the disposal of the board of regents in a short time. Attorney General Jones says:
“The time in which an appeal may be made to the decision ordering the money turned over to the state expired Thursday or Friday. At any rate, the time has just expired, and no petition for an appeal has been filed; therefore, it is fair to assume that Mr. Smith expects to pay the money into the treasury of the board of regents. Nothing else can be done now that the time for an appeal has expired.”
Mr. Jones says one of the most interesting cases before the legal department of the state is the suit of David Goss, a Tacoma contractor, against the board of regents of the agricultural college. Mr. Goss has attempted to enjoin the board from letting the contract for college work to Contractor Cameron, of Spokane, and also for damages. Regarding Mr. Goss, Mr. Nichols, another local contractor, says:
“Goss’ bid was the lowest. The board skipped two or three bids, and took Cameron’s. Some changes in the work had been made, and that gave the board an opportunity to accept a higher bid than Goss’. It is also held there was a scheme to do Goss out of the contract.”
“Goss’ bid was the lowest. The board skipped two or three bids, and took Cameron’s.”
Public contracting disputes are as old as public colleges. The fight over who got the contract—and whether the low bidder was deliberately skipped—is a reminder that transparency in public spending was a live issue in 1894 Washington. The specific players are gone, but the pattern of allegations, injunctions, and “schemes” to steer public work still feels familiar.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.