The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-06-10
THE CHARGES FAIL.
Case Against Health Officer
Sparkling Dismissed.
WITNESSES WHO NEVER CAME.
The Board Sits Down squarsly Upon
Political Prosecution--OtheF
Charges Are Threatened.

AAc INVESTIGATION OF the Charges pre-.
ferred against Health Officer George H. T.
Sparkling by DR.. George A. Reich was con-
Guided before the board of health yester-
day afternoon and resulted in a signal
victory for the defense. DR.. Reich used
every means in his power to get contin-
uance OF the case, hut on the statement of
DIR. Churchill that he had notified all the
witnesses named by the prosecution at the
hrst days hearing, requesting them to be
present, the case was declared closed and
given over to the board for final decis-
ion. The case was commenced with all
members of the board present Orange
Jacobs conducting the case for Health Of
fcer Sparkling. while r. C. Strudwick
looked after DR.. Reich's interests. DIR.
Holmes presided, and on opening the hear
ing asked DR.. Reich if the prosecution had
any evidence to introduce.
DR.. Reich, who had just entered, accom-
panied by Mr.. Strudwick. appeared to be
much put out, and replied that he desired
continuance on the ground that the
prosecutions witnesses could not be pres
ent.
Orange Jacobs failed to see why the case
should be continued. He would be in
Olympia next week and could not be pres
ent. In justice to DR.. Sparkling he thought
the case should be heard.
Mr.. Strudwick said he appeared for DR..
Reich merely in hopes of gaining con-
tinuance, which was supplemented by DR..
Reich's stating that he was utterly unpre-
pared to go on with the case.
DIR. Holmes called for opinions from the
board as to the course to be pursued.
DR.. Shannon said that the case was con.
tinued at the request of DIR. Reich, and now
that all the board was present he favored
going on with the case, and made motion
to that effect. Mr.. Strudwick disliked the
idea of proceeding when DR.. Reich's Wit
nesses could not be present.
DR.. Reich became excited and declared
that if the case was heard he should prefer
further charges of inefficiency and neglect
OF the public health against DR.. Sparkling.
DR.. Holmes reminded him that that had
nothing to do with the present case. DR..
Holmes asked DIR. Churchill if he Sec
onded DIR. Shannon's motion, to which he
replied that motion was unnecessary
but thought the Case should go on, such
being the opinion of the board.
DR.. Holmes then asked the prosecution
if they had any more evidence to intro
duce, to which DR.. Reich replied that his
witnesses could not be present.
Mr.. Jacobs asked DR.. Reich if he desired
to dismiss the charges. to which he replied
with angry emphasis: "No, SIR" DR..
Sparkling was the first witness for the de-
Tense, and testified that he was at the
First precinct of the Fifth ward on the
day of the election. He was the Repub-
lIcan central committeeman from the
ri nd h,d oh IF ~ oh 1Ior
ers. Both parties had such officers. He
was at the polling place before the polls
opened. A man came to him and said he
had not been allowed to vote. Sparkling
went to the door and asked for Mr.. Brown,
the Republican challenger. Officer Stepler
said he had orders to Keep him out and he
must go. He went around and called
through the window to Brown and Stepler
came out and pushed him from the railing
Stepler said he had no right there. He had
one foot in the door when Officer Stepler
put him out. He was at the Second pre-
cinct of the Fifth ward and was inside the
booth. Went with Mr.. Howard to sec
that he voted. He took the Republican
challengers' place and had a right to do SO,
having them in charge. Mr.. Towards
vote was challenged by the Democratic
challenger. He lived on Union street and
owned house there. but went for q few
days to the Ripley house. He had con-
suited Attorney Jacobs and got an opinion
that he was entitled to vote. He swore in
his vote. He never had star, but had q
shield. He did not show it to Officer
Stepler. 1t was given him by the board Of
health by permission of the chief of police.
He was the Republican challenger when
in the booth. Did not use any violent lam
guage or act in an unbecoming manner.
Mayor Ronald was asked if he wanted to
testify, and replied that he had heard he
entered a polling place, and if such was
the case desired 10 refute it and place him.
self right before the public.
An examination of the papers revealed
that Dr. Sparkling had testified that Ron.
aid had stepped over the railing.
Mayor Ronald said: II was never in q
polling during the election"
Mr. Jacobs asked the mayor If he was at
the door of polling booth. and to which
Mr. Ronald replied: mo; l went to the
railing on Front street and asked for
Thomas Noonan."
DR.. Sparkling said he testified that Mayor
Ronald got over the rail.
Mayor Ronald said that he desired to
correct the idea that he was in polling
place during the election, and then he
would withdraw. The prosecution was
allowed TO introduce the evidence of ]. c.
Whit!ock, who testified that DR.. Sparkling
acted in an officious manner at the polls,
but on cross-examination he admitted
that he did not know the law concerning
the appointment of challengers.
Ed X. Brown testified that he was the
Fifth ward, First precinct. Republican
challenger, and was appointed by DR..
Sparkling. A man answered all questions
save his place of residence. DR.. Sparkling
said he knew the man. and that there
were twenty men who knew him to be a
voter, and that he should be allowed to
vote. AT this point Officer Stepier told
Sparling to go out and he did so. Spar
ling was about three feet inside the door.
Hiram Jacobs testified that DR.. Sparkling
had power to appoint challengers. He
came into the voting place of the Second
precinct. Fifth ward, with Mr.. Howard,
whose vote the Democrats challenged on