The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-08
A POLITICAL CHARGE.
Effort to Gust the Republican
Health officer.
HE IS AIN OFFENSIVE PARTISAN.
DIR. Sparkling Is Accused Of Conduct IN
becoming an Officer and Gentle
man on Election Day.

| At a regular monthly meeting OF the
board of health last evening the following
charges were preferred by DR.. George A.
| Reich against Dr. George II. I. Sparkling,
city physician:
/ To The Board of Health: l herewith prefer
/ charges against DR.. George II. I. Sparkling, your
health officer, for exercising undue political in
/ fiuenee during the last election In interfering
| with balloting aud acting unbecoming gentle
| man and an officer OF the city government
At the First precinct of the Fifth ward he was
| elected from the voting booth by Police Officer
! A. 5. Stepper, at the request OF I. K. Nunau,
judge of election, and his associate officers OF
| said precinct
AS he still persist I'd to interfere within the ir-
| closure of the booth, upon being advised to
| leave he showed the officer a small star, claim
ing that he was there on duty as well rs the Of
| fcer, and that his star represented the same
authority police star does
| At the Second precinct OF the Fifth ward he
was also expelled from the booth by an officer.
| at the request of the members OF the board OF
| election. This board consisted OF Daniel kelle-
| her, II. A. Bigelow, s. Elicott and Mr.. Robert
son. In this precinct he also attempted to
swear in voters, thus laying himself liable to
| subornaton of perjury. Your health officer
! would have been placed under arrest at the
| time had the judges Of this precinct appreciated
| their full authority.
believe that the city government ought to be
| purged OF such nondescript and would-be poll
ticians, and l most respectfully request that
| these charges be Investigated at once.
DIR. Sparkling was represented by Judge
| Orange Jacobs and the following answer
to the charges was read:
To the Honorable Board Of Health Of the City Of
Sedttle:-Respectfuiiy protesting against the
| sufiiciency OF the charges presented against me
! as health officer OF this city by DIR. George A.
Reich, and further protesting that these charges,
ii true, do not effect the discharge of my duties
| as health officer of the city of Seattle, and DO
not question either my efficiency, qualifications
or ability as such health officer. and that there
| fore this board has no jurisdiction to try the
same
Fifst--I deny that was elected by Albert s.
| Siepplcr, police officer OF said city, from the
voting booth OF the First precinct of the Fifth
| ward at the request OF 7. f. Nunan or OF any
| other officer of election.
| l deny that was in the booth on said election
day at any time during said day at the voting
place during the voting in said First precinct OF
| said Fifth ward.
admit that on the day of election that alter
| had seen DR.. Jordan and j. t. Ronald, who
| were not voters at said precinct, enter said
| booth, that started up the aileyway to enter
| the same but was told by the officer mentioned
| in said first charge that l could not enter the
| BOOTH wen turned around and walked out of
| said alleyway, only stopping long enough in
| said alleyway to protest against the entry OF the
| said DR.. jordan and J. T. Ronald, both OF whom
! were candidates for office, and not allowing me
| to enter as a member and committeeman of the
| Republican party.
/ Second-In answer to the second speeifica-
| ton, deny each and every allegation thereof
| Third-In answer to the third specification of
said charges deny each and every allegation
| thereof.
Fourth-In answer to the fourth specification,
claim that it is the right of voter, if he is
| challenged, and is qualified to vote, to swear in
| his vote. How person could be guilty of sub
| ordination OF perjury by advising voter who
| has the qualifications of a voter to swear in his
vote, il he can not vote otherwise, is more than
| / can understand.
Whether the last sentence in this specification
| is reflection on the courage and intelligence
| of the judges of the second precinct of the
| Filth ward upon this respondent am not
| able to understand.
This specification makes the person who
| fathers these charges on hearsay and pretends
| to know actual knowledge himself the judge of
what the officers of election ought to have done.
| Fifth-The last sentence in this remarkable
| communication shows the aniInus OF these
! charges and stamps them with the imprint of
| malice, and shows that they have other founda-
tions than the promotion of the public good.
The investigation of the charges was
| Immediately proceeded with. A. S.
| Steppler, the policeman who was on duty
at the First precinct OF the Fifth ward on
the day of election, was called, and testi-
fed:
While on duty at the voting booth DR..
Sparkling came in with man whom he
wanted to vote. The man made out his
ballot and, although DIR. Sparkling wanted
him to VOTE he would not be sworn in,
and so his vote was not counted. The
man, accompanied by DR.. Sparkling, came
around again. and he took up ballot
again but did not cast it. The doctor was
standing near the booth and l told him he
would have to step away. He flashed a
star on me and said that he had as much
right there as / had | insisted on his
moving away, and he did So"
At this juncture DR.. Sparkling conferred
with his attorney, and the latter asked
the policeman:
"Why did you insist on DR.. Sparkling
going away, when DR.. Jordan and ]. T.
Ronald were allowed to go into the booth ?''
az didn't see them go in"
did not DR.. Jordon give you IS to let
him go in?"
"No."
ne WilueoS SAlluAtci Tue idCh Oh gOOu
memory, and before he left the stand was
considerably tangled up.
Samuel Eihcott, judge of election in the
Second precinct of the Fifth ward, was
called next. He testified TO having had
some words with Dr.. Sparkling A man
named Howard attempted 10 vote. but he
| (EUicott) would not allow him TO
do so OH a question OF resi-
dence. In 4 short time he returned
to the booth with Dr. Sparkling and the
latter insisted on Towards vote being &C.
cepted. He went away and returned sew
eral times with Howard. and finally the
latter made the necessary affidavit and
his vote was cast. During his last visit to
the booth the witness claimed that DR..
Sparkling talked so loud that he called on
Officer Pearce 10 eject him. The officer
stepped up and spoke to the doctor and
the latter Immediately left the booth.
Officer Pearce was next called and his
testimony considerably modified the story
of Mr. E.licott. The investigation looked
good deal like q bowling farce, and at the
conclusion of the testimony of Officer
Pearce DR.. Reich asked for continuance
until Thursday 10 allow him time to sum-
mon more witnesses. The continuance
was allowed.
VI. Il. GOODELL DYING.
The Well known Pioneer succumbine
d