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

in charge Of the city Ananc>s. ana without dis
rent from any quarter. Mors shan this. neither
the amount nor the form 81 the city gurvoyoro
compensation los either his tfme o. hts ex-.
penses Except his nominal aalary3 was eJsr
prescribed by the common council: the settle
menn were always matter regulated ~ long
continued usage Of tbs street and nnance COM
mtttees.
A to the pssiot. october 2s-si. The only state
ment handed you was payroll, showing the
actual hire OF the ONCE foree during that PERIOD
together with few fractions Of lost time Of
some Of the men thr ughout the month, which
il 10 always customary TO allow to them on set-
sls ment at the close Of the month Proposed
rates for the several men were submitted on
that payroll. which Il was designed 10 ask that
they be allowed under the new system Of the
ONE Tnese rates are higher in some cases than
those had been paying, but the advance re-
quessed for these men was . reasonable one.
and the sta-ement submitted Was merely re-
port Of time and Submission Of proposed rates.
and in no sense claim n for wages actuslly
paid ont or contracted. The time shown in this
statement wso in Ill cases actual tire; II ex.
tended at the rate had been paying. IT win az
gregate precisely the total Of that portion Of the
annexed detail sheets relating to the period,
October 1881.
SO mucn for the substance, or total result Of
the rejected bills. - ilurrat-d BY these Diet died
statements OF exact expenditure now handed
you. and subj Il THAI the exhibit that lay b.
lore yeu II accept ID az correct In point Of act,
demonstrates conc.usively that, far from wrong.
ing the City or any II its property-holdr rs by a
dollar in the bills that iately submitted 10
you, have not asked for the whole that waS,
ent tied TO. You are at liberty TO examine my
time books and other records bearing upon
tnese detail exhibits Of expense. aud to check
them up. at any time and to any extent that II
may suit your pleasure, in order 20 verify tie
correctness OF these exhibits.
But It remains to discuss the question OF jus-
tl6abliiy OF the form.in when the bills in ques-
ton were made ont This form OF bill Is not. AZ
seems TO have besn assumed, q false payroll or
in the nature Of , payroll ct all. although the
blank long in use and still used 10 headed PAY
roll" This heading seems 10 have survived
from the usage OF former years IN the ONCE
when the account turned In actually purported
10 b a pay roll, having column headei Sig
natures" and 6iled out with what were osten-
sibiy the rnatures OF the men receipting for
the amounts entered opposite. Thes- purpcrtec
signatures were at that time, in most cases 81
least. not really the signatures - all. but were
all written by The surveyors accountant. who
prepared the pay roll or by the surveyor him
SELF ms ancss OF this can be seen in the city
clerks Office in the Payroll sheets on the
IN
1857. and for june lsss. turned IN over the sig
nature OF Mr.. Aibso Gardner. then city
surveyor. such sheeis really purported TO
be payr0lis. and containing. as they did,
statements of both the time and the rate OF
wages Of the employees ct ngur . OF increase
over the actual ones, they were not only false
vouchers. but in those cases where the sigma
lures were not genuine but were oil written in
by the hand o. the accnu utsnt Of the once,
they we're something very like forgeries. But
this practice, though probably not deceiving or
intended to deceive the street committee or the
finance committee OF the common cou icii, was
abandoned later on aud the form OF the sheets
was changed BY emitting the column for signs
tures, though the heading spayr1ll" was and
stili Is retained. But bill made out on this
later form not only was not . payroll because
the city hal no payroll in the surveyors office,
but the employees were the surveyors own SER
wants and paid BY him personally, but It has
never been understood or supposed by any city
officials passing upon IL TO be q payroll
The common council under the old char.
ter for years past has sanctioned
the surveyors charging all his expenses. both
for wages of employees and ior other outlay, In
the form Of reiurn OF wages paid to the en-.
ployes. whils understanding fully that the
TINS OF this return were based only In part on
wages actually pail. The prac.ice has perhaps
been Tool Oh on, Or even . vicious one Il
wou d have been better. no doubt. that the
items for wages should have bsen actual and
that incidental expenses should have been
placsd in parate itsm, or items, or Use that
moath bill in the lump. without items. for
work on each street. justiiying the bill when
ever occaaion required by exnibi ing HE time
books and other vouchers. And psrhaps the
practice was not only foolish but vicious, q
founded on design to deceive the owners OF
property subject to street assessment, ariaing
from mistaken notion in some GU AFTER that an
assessment would not b valid IL it
included incidental expenses specified a.
such. But the practice. Whatever it was and
whatever its design or eRsct, and to
whomsoever il was due, was not originated by
me. but existed long before ever saw Seattle.
II was not adopted BY me to deceive nor used
BY me in dealing with any persons whom
could deceive by it; nor was It Adopted by me
of my own motion- The only persons with
whom was dealing or was concerned were the
street committee and the finance committee.
aud 1t was upon the dir seton Of members Of
these committees that perpetuated, during my
brief incumbency OF the duties OF city sur
veyor, the mod aud form of making out bills
that prevailed before Members of those CON-
mittees of the common council expressly told
me not to charge for incidental expenses as
such. nor for discount on scrip as such,
but to make the increase Of itemizsd time
and OF specif I'd rate OF wages for the same that
had previously been Customary. suficent to
cover those expenses and discount Under this
system the time as well g the rate
had to be increased in some cases:
II the rate oaly mad baen increased.
either the increase would have had to be con-
stantly varying as the incidental expenses and
the discount on scrip varied. or It would nave
varied widely from the amour. OF the expenses
aud discount in some m ntns TO the substantial
wrong of either the assessment di tricts or N.Y.
self. With this history of the form OF bills laid
before you, all OF which will resd.ly be substsn.
tiaied both by my pr decessors az city surveyor
forinany years past and By memb rs of the
former city government l submit hat have
neither intended nor done anything In my pre.
sentati of bills for city work that deserved
the censure which you have 80 hastily visited
upon my action. for have already shown you
satisfactorily, think, that in point of substance
my bills were entirely correct and iusti6 ahle