The Governor's $50,000 Bond
A defaulting King County treasurer's case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving Governor Ferry and other bondsmen on the hook for $34,000.
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.
SEATTLE, Dec. 9.—J. T. Ronald, attorney for the county in the case of King County vs. George D. Hill's bondsmen, has received a dispatch from Washington City stating that the United States Supreme Court had thrown out of court the two cases which had been carried up from the state supreme court. The court held that, no federal question being involved, it has no jurisdiction. This practically decides the case in favor of the county. By the decision of the state supreme court, George D. Hill's bondsmen will be required to pay about $34,000 to King County, that being the amount, with interest, of the shortage in the ex-treasurer's accounts during his first two terms, from 1881 to 1885. A third suit, involving about $40,000, is now pending in the superior court of King County, and the arguments of counsel will be made Friday evening of this week. Governor Ferry is one of Hill's bondsmen for the sum of $50,000.
“Governor Ferry is one of Hill's bondsmen for the sum of $50,000.”
When a county treasurer fell short by tens of thousands of dollars, the men who signed his bond—including the governor—became the target of the county's lawyers. The case is a reminder that public office in the 1890s was secured by personal surety, not just audits and insurance. Modern readers can recognize the same question: who pays when public money goes missing?
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.