, 1892-09-10
THAT HIGH SCHOOL.

What has become Of the high school
building, the imposing structure which
was to have been erected at Union and
Washington streets, or elsewhere, is a
much mooted question. The various ups
and downs in this matter have so confused
it in the minds of the people, that there are
few indeed, who understand it. President
]. G. Rathbun, of the school board,
presents the status of the case very clearly
in his annual report.
He shows that in February, special
election was called, to vote upon the prop
osition whether or not the school board
should borrow $4,000 for the purpose of
erecting High School Building and to
fund outstanding warrants, then aggregat-
ing about $4,000. The necessary three
tifths vote was obtained. Steps were i'm
medlately taken by the board to borrow
the money a1d prepare plans for the build
ing. Farson, Leach & Co., of Chicago, Of
fered a premium of $2519.5O for six per
cent bonds running twenty years. Their
bid was the most favorable and was &C
oepted by the board. Plans and specih-
cations were called for from the architects
of Olympia for a building to cost not to
exceed $25,OOO. The plans and specifca-
tions prepared by B. F. NJ. Weeks, were
adopted on condition that a contract for
the construction of the building could be
awarded at his estimated cost, to-wit: $685.
900. Four bids were received ranging from
$24,969 to $4,000. During the proceedings
thus far the legal question had been raised
that, while the board had been authorized
to borrow money "for the purpose of erect
ing High School Building and to fund
outstanding warrants" it had not, as
distinct proposition, been directed by the
people to build school house; nor had
the people located a site to build on. AS
soon as the contract with Mr.. Weeks had
been carried out and a bid received
within his estimated cost of the build
ing, the board, though not unanimous
as to the need of it, called a special
election to determine whether or not
the board should build and also to desig-
nate site, The number OF votes cast was
534, 273 being for and 261 against building
on the Union street site. The vote thus
DSAA6 IL tAAC ami AAAdllNO bu6 DOdIu III OllCE
prescribed form of bond, as required by
law, and submitted it to Farson, Leach &
Co. These gentlemen insisted upon hay
ing incorporated in the bond a certificate
by the board that everything necessary to
be done preliminary to issuing the bonds
had been done in regular and due form as
required by law. Our bond law does dot
require the board to make this certificate.
1t had been suggested by men of legal abil-
ity that the notice which the board issued,
calling the bond election was insufficient
in this; 1t stated that the money, if bor-
rowed, would be used for two purposes but
did not submit the two propositions in !
such manner that an elector could vote |
for one and against the other. Consider
ing that this might be fatal objection to
the validity Of the bond issue the board |
would not be justified in making the GER
tiicate insisted upon by the successful bid |
ders for the bonds and declined to do so. |
Nearly three months have passed since the
form of bond was adopted and Messrs.
Farson, Leach g. Co. have not signifed
either a willingness or refusal to accept it.
Thus the matter stands