Spokane County Commissioners Fire Courthouse Superintendent, Demand Architect's Resignation
A dispute over incompetency and neglect of duty leads to a shake-up in the construction of the Spokane County courthouse.
Spokane, March 29.—The ax has fallen. The board of county commissioners have fired Superintendent Conley, and have asked for the resignation of Architect Ritchie. They are thoroughly aroused, and when they read this morning's papers there was blood on the moon.
The entire matter was discussed this morning, and as a result the following letters were indited:
'To M. C. Conley: You are hereby discharged from the duties of superintendent of the courthouse building for the following reasons, to-wit: First—Incompetency. Second—Neglect of duty. By order of the board of county commissioners.'
'To W. A. Ritchie: In the interest of harmony, by unanimous consent of the board of county commissioners, you are hereby requested to resign your position as architect of the courthouse building, to take effect immediately.'
Mr. Ritchie was seen while he was reading this letter, and said that he did not now wish to discuss the matter. He did not know whether or not he would comply. Prior to this he said: 'I don't think the board will care to press this matter when they have carefully considered the various phases. I have a contract with the county commissioners, and they might as well ask Mr. Fotheringham to surrender his contract.'
Chairman Thorpe had nothing to say except that he hoped the whole affair would be arranged and work resumed Friday morning.
Mr. Conley was seen, and said he had received his letter, but didn't care to discuss it. 'The two letters speak for themselves,' he said. 'They gave economy as the reason for dismissal; now they allege incompetency and neglect of duty. I don't think I have any difficulty in disproving these charges, but the letter really deserves little notice.'
“They are thoroughly aroused, and when they read this morning's papers there was blood on the moon.”
The Spokane County Courthouse, completed in 1895, is now a historic landmark. The dispute reflects the perennial tension between public officials, contractors, and taxpayers over large public works projects.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.