The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-11
THE SOLEMN FARCE.
Close Of the Board Of Public
Works Trial.
no NEW FACTS ARE ELECTED.
The Mayor VIII Take . Week to Lock
Iato the Law and Fi,s His Findings-
Burleigh's Defense Of Heilbron.


nonfeasance in Office as q member of the
board of public works by the mayor was
i had yesterday. The interest was undated
i end there were many new faces in the
Iobby.
Corporation Counsel Donworth was alb
I eent and the city was represented by e. F.
blaine Mr.. Hebron was represented by
Andrew F. Burleigh, and o. C. Pratt was
sworn in as stenographer. The proceed
jngs were of the driest character. There
vas no matter of any magnitude de-
seloped, and the attacking counsel devoted
hour after hour to questions of the minut-
est character, with view to establishing
any one of the charges. The hearing
lasted from 10 O'Clock to nearly o'clock,
With only forty-five minutes interval.
Immediately on the mayor taking his
seat the following answer was presented
70 him by Mr.. Heibron's attorney:
In the matter Of certain charges made and pre.
erred By J. T. Ronald. mayor of the city of
Seattle. on the 10Th day OF April, 1892, against
George H. Hebron, member OF the board OF
public works OF said city, the respondent an.
ewering the same, SAYS:
= Fint-He excerpts to the sutnciency thereof
snd to the rights and power OF the said J. T,
Ronald, a. mayor, to hear and determine the
! same.
l Because said charges and each and eyery
. one OF them are sham and frivolous, aud consti-
! tute in law no cause for the removal of this
. respondent from his office a q member of the
board of public works.
2 Because the power to hear and determine
| any charges alleged to constitute cause in law
| for the removal of public officer from mis- Office
ha judicial function, and ito exercise 10 q judi
cial proceeding, which Is not and can not be
vested In the mayor Of any city under the con.
stitntion and laws of the state of Washington.
3 Because Ii 10 repugnant to the spirit OF
i the common law of England and America and
OF the statute law of the United States and all
the states thereof, that he who brings an accu-
l sasion shall sit in Judgment thereon, acting at
the same time both as accuser and judge
mountaineering charges l and 3. He adj
nts that the policy of insurance as described
vas authorized by the board of public works,
and that premium of $27.50 was paid therefor
l 70 the Washington Territory Investment Com.
pany as alleged. he denies, however, that he
was stakeholder in said Washington Territory
Investment Company at the time said policy
asissued, or that he had any interest of a
peeuniary nature, either direct or indirect in
the procurement OF said policy OF insurance.
Third-Answering charge third. He admits
that the construction Of a sewer tunnel was be-
gun from Lake Union TO Elliott bay 40 a part of
the general sewerage system OF the city of Sc
q
ana materials have been used In the construc-
ton OF said tunnel a. alleged. He denies,
however, that he, 40 . member of said board of
public works, has failed to manage, control or
inspect said tunnel, or superintend the con-
struction thereof, but alleges on the contrary
that he has faithfully and diligently managed
and controlled the construction of said tunnel
N common with the other members Of said
board OF public works, in accordance with the
provisions OF the charter OF the city OF Seattle,
the ordinances OF said city and the rules of said
board He further alleges that he has inspected
eaid tunnel at divers times, and denies that he
has joined in any report regarding said tunnel
without personal and sufficient knowledge re-
earding the facts in said report contained.
Fourth-Answering charge four. He denies
that the larger pipes or mains on Yesler avenue
and Rainier streets as described were laid dur
Ing his tenure of Office a member of said board
Of public works, but asserts that said larger
mains or pipes were laid before he entered upon
| the duties of member Of said board He ad-
| miss, however. that certain water pipes were
laid on Yesler avenue. but denies that he failed
to inspect the same, and that he joined in re-
ports regarding same without any knowledge Of
| the facts in such reports contained.
Fiith-Answering charge five He admits a.
alleged that during his tenure OF Office ~ a
member Of said board of public works, said
board on behalf OF the city, undertook the con-
attic, and on behalf OF said city, large amount
OF street panking and the laying OF large guam
uty OF water and sewer pipe, and the construc-
ton and repair of public buildings He denies,
however, that during the making of all said
Improvements he failed to give his time
or attention to the superintendence thereof
In whole or In part, but alleges on the
contrary that during the making of all of said
Improvements he devoted much time and atten-
ZION to the superintendence thereof. He admits
that with his consent said improvements were
paced under the direct superintendent OF
competent persons EN- ployed by said board of
public works, but alleges that at all times and
IN every case said improvements were con-
trolled. supervised and directed by the said
board of public works and by him as q member
Of said board. He further denies that the city
has been compelled to pay for said improve
ments sums OF money far in excess of the rea-
sonable value thereof, and alleges on the con-
trary that all of said improvements have been
prosecuted with due diligence aud economy.
He further denies that during the time that he
has been member of said board of public works
he has failed to give his time attention to the
duties OF his office, but alleges that he has at
Gil times given to the said duties all OF the time
and attention required by the charter of said
city OF Seattle. the ordinances OF said city and
the rules of the board OF public works, and all OF
The time and attention that the proper per-
Torrance of his duties required.
And further answering, the respondent de-
MES that rs a member OF said board of public
works he has ever been guilty of malfeasance,
misfeasance or non!easance in Office.
And further answering, the respondent al
ieges: That he believes all of the charges in
SAID complaint contained are inspired by an un-
Just desire 10 secure the removal OF the re-
spondent for political and partisan purposes.
contrary to the provisions of the charter, and he
demands that he be given the opportunity at
The hearing of these charges to adduce tssti-
nony In support of this position.
Edwin II. Warner was put upon the
stand and testified that he was one Of the
committee of three, the others being ]. w.
Van Brocklin and NJ. Stixrud. He had
examined the tunnel, and stated what
means had been used to make the tunnel
cRoss-ExAaINEp.
Knew Benexette Williams by reputation; he
considered him good engineer, the soil met
with Was Of the worst kind engineer could
rave; an engineer should anticipate il by tax
Ing proper precautions; he supposed the object
OF dlverting from the main channel was to
certain how far the bad soil existed: the OPP
Grafton To be performed must be determined
from day 20 day as the indications suggested; in
prospecting, instead of making the breast the
tal! width of the tunnel, il should have been
Gone SO as 20 allow of protecting tiinoers.
\ In reply TO the mayor, who asked if there
r.was any fear of settlement at the surface
OF caye-in, Mr.. Warner said there might
or might not be; if the surface was hard
there would not be. but if not there
might be.
REORGANIZATION resumed. The surface was
Nl feet above the tunnel at that point; he
thought II would have justified an expense OF
several thousand dollars in experiment