The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-21
AFTER HEATON'S SCALP.

Snoqualmie, Oct. IL. 1895.
To the Editor: In your issue of Septem-
her - | noticed an article under the cap
ton of Questions for Mr.. Heaton," in
which Mr.. Heaton's methods of letting
out a job of road work at Snoqualmie
was severely criticised. The article is sill
right so far as it goes. but had your cor
respondent possessed all the facts in the
case he could have written far more en-
tertainingly on the subject.
Briefly, the facts of the case are IS fol-
lows: About the first week in September
a corduroy bridge on the road near Mi.
Reinig's place, at Snoqualmie. was de-
destroyed by forest fires. Mr.. 1Ieaton
came up day or so afterwards, and SITTER
looking the ground over, announced his
intention of giving the job of repairing
the bridge by contract to the lowest BID
der. and. telling the road supervisor that
he would send up plans and specifca-
tons" together with notices calling for
bids. he went back 10 Seattle. About
dozen would-be bidders waited IN vain
nearly two weeks for the expected notices
and plans. While they were waiting Mr..
Heaton was not Idle; he was busily Ell
gased in handing out the contract through
the side door TO a couple of his par
ticular friends at their own price, without
any competition whatever
OF course. such a display of double deal
ing excited a good deal of Indignation
among the people of Snoqualmie and vi
entity. But when some of them protested
to Mr.. Heaton he only puffed out his lit
tie chest and. with a lordly. Pickwickian
wave of the hand, replied that ne had 4
right" to do that way if he felt like it.
Now let us see if this claim will bear in
vestigation. Section of IAN act relat-
ing to public roads, pages 1i9 and 80,
Session Laws of 1898, says: The county
-
TO the lowest bidder the construction or
Improvement of any road or bridge on
the public roads, where the expense of
such construction or Improvement VIII
exceed the sum OF $50 This section was
obviously framed for the express purpose
of preventing Just such transactions as
the one above recorded. But after all. the
chief question with the taxpayer is not
who did the work, but was the work well
done. and for reasonable price?
Unfortunately, in this case negative an
swers must be given TO both questions.
As to the quality of the work it is there
70 show for itself, and as long as it stays
there will stand as a lettering monument
TO the memory of the 500 squandered up
on it. AS to the price, Mr.. Heaton admits
that he paid $50 of the peoples money
for this little job. and in addition 10 that.
he made three trips to Snoqualmie on that
account. consuming one day of his valu-
able time on each trip and all the expenses
which he knows so well how to pile up.
Per diem and expenses for Mr.. Heaton
in connection with this Job Will proba-
bly, foot up to $50 or more. So the whole
cost of the Job will be at least 500.
Competent authorities say that a much
better piece of work could have been done
for less than $50, and, indeed, some of the
would-be bidders claim that their bids for
a more substantial piece of work would
have been about that sum. Mr.. Heatons
deliberate violation of the law above
quoted thus costs the taxpayers of King
county considerably over 800, which
amounts 10 a clear gift of that much Of
the peoples money to Mr.. Heatons
friends.
Mr. Heaton has recently sent a circular
letter TO the road supervisors in his dis
trict notifying them that on account of
the condition Of the road and bridge fund
no work would be authorized nor claims
for road work allowed by him-(in the let
ter he incidentally pats himself on the
hack for having reduced the expenditures
in other departments of the county adj
ministration). il is not to be wondered
AT that the road and bridge fund should
be in a condition" after being raided a
few times as II was on the Snoquaimie
joh {. i. KLAUS.