The $1-a-Month Man: Seattle Tries to Gut Its Plumbing Inspector

In the House of Delegates an ordinance came in from the board of aldermen which fixed the salary of the plumbing inspector at $1 per month, practically abolishing the office, and reducing the salary of the chief engineer of the water department from $2,000 to $1,500 a year.

An extensive discussion ensued as to the reduction of the plumbing inspector's salary. Chapman thought that it was an outrage to pass an ordinance which would to all intents and purposes abolish the office when charges of theft and falsifying bills were in the hands of a committee against J. H. Sweeney, who has been nominated for the position by the board of health, and whose confirmation by the House of Delegates has been asked for. To do away with the office at the present time, Mr. Chapman thought, would be casting a serious reflection upon the reputation of Mr. Sweeney, and he believed a vindication should come first.

Mr. Kittle, of the committee to whom has been referred the charges against Mr. Sweeney, said that Mr. Chapman seemed to assume the burden of the committee. It might be, Mr. Kittle said, that the committee would not make a report which would be satisfactory to Mr. Chapman.

Mr. James believed that the discussion of the charges was out of order. The finance committee had recommended that the salary be reduced to $1 for the reason that the members did not think a plumbing inspector was needed at present.

Mr. Voigt called the attention of the delegates to the fact that the city charter made it mandatory to have a plumbing inspector. Mr. James said that the office had not been abolished, but the salary cut down, and the charter gave the council the right to put the duties on a police officer, if necessary.

It was stated that the plumbing inspector had been performing the duties of sanitary inspector, and if that were true, President Crichton said, he did not believe it would be wise to so reduce the salary that a competent person could not be induced to accept the position.

Mr. James said that if the city needed a sanitary inspector, then let one be appointed, and not have a plumbing inspector drawing a salary for doing the duties of one office and at the same time perform the duties of another.

W. D. McMillan, a plumber, was given the floor, and spoke against the practical abolition of the office, alleging that the city would be greatly injured without a good inspector and if Mr. Sweeney was confirmed it would have one.

After further discussion the ordinance was referred to the sewer committee. James gave notice of a motion to reconsider.