The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-16

The superior court has sustained the
demurrer to the complaint filed against
the county commissioners in the aims
house case 1t il difficult TO see how the
court under the facts alleged could have
rendered different decision.
Judge Langley in the course of bis able
and exhaustive opinion makes the follow
ing statement:
"The real controversy here Is against the
commissioners Of King county, whom the
complaint charges with having acted be-
yond the scope of their lawful powers in
contracting for the construction OF an
almshousc. now we'll advanced toward COM
plesion, on tho county farm Of King
county, having no surplus fund In the
treasury. or special tax authorized by
vote of the people. for that purpose. All
other defendants are made parties incl
dentaily, and for the purpose OF the In
junctive relief prayed for"
Under these circumstances any criticism
OF the county commissioners for standing
upon their legal rights Is uncalled for and
unjust They could not In justice to
themselves and their bondsmen do other
wise.
Whatever else may be said regarding the
merits OF the aimshouse controversy it is
generally admitted by all who are con-
verssns with the facts that the county
needs . new almshouse, and needs 1t
badly. The present almshouse Is not only
entirely inadequate. but il 10 positively
unhealthful. Common humanity de-
mands that the unfortunate inmates
should be provided with other quarters.
Ii Is further generally admitted, and the
court has so decided. that the county CON-
sioners acted within the scope of their
authority In arranging for the erection of
the new building. Under these circum-
stances the commissioners certainly could
not be blamed for resisting an attempt TO
make il appear that they exceeded their
authority in letting the contract for the
building. Ifsuch . contention could be
sustained the county commissioners
would be personally liable for all money
expended In connection with the work.
We do not believe that the men who first
brought the matter to the attention of the
commissioners ever charged that a new
almshonse was not needed or that the
county commissioners exceeded their au-
thori!y in erecting such building. What
was charged. however. was that the build
ing was not being built according to the
plans and specifications. and further that
there vas fraudulent collision between
the architect and the contractor. both be-
fore and after the contract for the erection
of the building was let
There has been no evidence as yet TO
show any corrupt motives on the part of
the county commissioners. nor 10 show
that they In any way participated in the
protits OF the conspiracy that was alleged
to have been entered into between the
architect and builder.
The evidence Of such q conspiracy. how
ever, was 30 strong that the county COM
missioners should not have remained sat
istied with the report of the grand Jury.
They should have proceeded at once to
file q criminal information against the
architect and contractor, or 20 hold a
public investigation themselves In order
that ell OF the facts in relation to the
transaction might he given the fullest
publicity.
IL is not now too late to take this action.
II the commissioners have been imposed
upon and If the public interests have
thereby suffered, certainly the only proper
thing to do Is TO bring the offenders TO
Justice.
Public officials are no, infalIihle, and are
liable. like everybody else. TO he deceived.
When they discover. however. that a de-
eertion has been practieed upon them
they are not justified in permitting the
offenders to escape punishment IL is
difficult 10 conceive. moreover. how the
architects and contractors themselves can
he content 10 rest under the stigma that
now sstsche. 20 them II in fact they have
been guilty Of no wrong. Nothing bnt a
full and public investigation can ses this
matter right before the people