The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-11-23

:
rose and replied to some Of the statements
contained ia Mr.. Stixrnd' . communication
He spoke IN substance - follows:
NJ Chairmoa: since his attorney has -
stated, We must assume that the extra0rdlnaxy
docamsnk to the reading Of which We have just
usseued. & the work Of NJ st,xrud, and thas he
II responsiblo for IL I consider that In preseutr
ing such communication to the board he has
been guilty Of great srespsct not only 20 the
members Of this board, but also to uthHf onlciaie
81 the city government His assertions that his
accounts were invess gated for political reasons
are absolutely without foundation.
Il IL well known that the October payroll OF
the city engineers office was presented ~ Mr.
Stixrud to the auditing committee OF the city
council for approval. This COMMITTEES COM
pYises the mayor, the president the board OF
aldermen, the pre- tdeut of the house OF dele-
Rates and the comp roller. The mayor advised
the aud ting committee that be : I'd been Ia
formed that the payroll - presented was incor-
rect, and that the rates rs CHARGED against the
city were higher then those actually paid 70 the
men. The audit1ng committee thefeup0a refused
to audit the payf II. and 1t WAS referred back -
lhe city ENGINEER for correction. The city
engineer reported the fact 20 the board OF pub
lie works, admitting the charge made BY the
auditing commi { q. but claiming that 1t was
imp. acticsbie ii not Impossible for him to fur
nish detailed statement of the expenses tnaf
he had chArsed up, - he c.aimed. in the extra
salaries.
The charter provides that all me- tings Of
the boaru OF pubic works shall be public, aud
this matter was therefore properly brought up
at . reguier met ting OF the board for lnvesti-
CATION. Mr.. Stixrud admitted lat the pay roll.
Is presented for approval, was faisifed, and
that not only in the case of one man, but Of
<ft nt,o ha
were actually paid. He said. however. that he
knew very little about tue accounts but that the
same were kept by his partner, Mr.. Phillips
The board then requested that all the books of
the Office be brought before the board, aud that
Mr.. Phillips be asked to be preseut to explain
his system OF keering the acconnts
At the next meeting Of the board both Mr.
Phillips and Mr.. Etxrud were present, and the
former y as gwen every opportunity TO explain
the apparent discrepancies His explanation,
however. amounted to nothing He admittsd
nos only the overcharges a. to the wages paid,
lut also that In ,lmost every case the men
whose names appeared upon the payroll were
charged against the different streets for dou.
Bile the time posted 10 the street 1edgers.
The Justification Of the ledger entries WAS also
explained by M. Phillips to be made for the
purpose OF covering incidental expenses, al
though no systematic method OF arriving ct the
amount of such incidental expenses was SHOWN.
Mr.. Phillips further admitted that he consid-
cred that Mr. Siixrud was entitled to profit on
the city work la addition to his salary and IL y
hisovercharses were made with this under
standing.
Mr. Stixrud disavowed any intention Of
making profit from the city work in addition
to his salary, aud again asserted that he paid
no attention whatever to the details OF tue
Bookkeeping. So Tar as the city il concerned
Mr. Stixrud 10 absolutely responsible for the
proper conduct OF his Office and for the proper
keeping OF his accounts. BY his own admission,
however, he Was guilty of the grossest nesli-
Rence in permitting the accounts to be deliber.
ately falsided.
Since Mr.. stixrud has state that Q member OF
the board had said that he believed him to be
honest, desire TO say that presume am the
member referred TO. What / did say 70 Mr.
Stixrud, and am glad TO say it publicly, was
that did not think that he had been inten.
ti0nally dishonest, bat that did f. ell that he
had been grossly negligent, and had allowed
himself to be duped into countenancing sys-
tenn that was peinicious in the extreme.
For tie reasons stated, therefore, Mr. Chair
man, which have not been satisj sctorily an-
kwered, and in view OF the extre me discount sy
of The communication read, ! move that the
board do now remove Mr.. Suxrud from the DO
6iti0n OF city engineer.
Major R,nehart said that such an attack
had been n ,de upon the board that he
thought they had no alternative but 10
take the course indicated.
II think also" said he, turning to Mr.
Shepard, that having been so recently an
empioye of the city yourself, your presence
here in such role is not in good taste.
We are passing upon q matter which
occurred while you were city official"
If Major Rinehart thinks" replied Mr..
Shepard, THAT because l was formerly
city attorney. however recently, that am
debarred from giving legal advice now 10
anybody seeking it, he is not familiar with
professional practice. am not afraid of
my own professional reputation"
Mr.. Hebron and Mr. Cochraue said
they had notified Mr.. Stixrud to appear
before them, but he did not take any
notice. and Mr.. Hebron added that they
considered it their duty to suspend him
until he could make satisfactory explana-
ton.
The motion to remove Mr.. Sttxrud was
put and adopted. Mr.. Stixrud and Mr..
Shepard then left the room.
After the transaction of some routine
business the board went into executive
session to consult informally as to the adj
visibility of making the appointment OF q
city engineer at that session. As SO much
time had already been lost, and there is
much business pressing it was decided to
proceed TO election.
Upon re-convening Mr.. Hebron nomi.
mated Mr.. Paul Recker as city engineer.
Major Rinehart p aced Mr.. Albro Gard
ner in nomination. He thought it no time
to make experiments with strangers He
read several communications endorsing Mr..
Gardner, whom he considered the best
available material they had in the city.
The board then proceeded to ballot, the
result being that Mr.. Gardner received two
votes and Mr. Riecker one.
The board adjourned until Monday.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.