The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-24
STATEMENT OF Nh. MAPLE



He Makes some Expaanations Regard
ang the Sureffcs on HIS Bond.
Seattle. Feb. - iss.
To the Editor: The sabuaased statement
showing the property Qualifications and
membranes against the properly Of tbs
surc<ies who signed the frst bond which
I fied with the county commissioners,
a. puhiiassd ID the Poss-Intelhgsucer
yesterday nso-nlng. was II many respects
misleading and d1oes grave injustics
10 many OF the sure<ies who signed the
same. I ask. therefore. that you give
space TO the following explanation:
The statement as published is copy
Of the original abstract made by the
county auditor. but II is a fact. whsdh was
admitted at the time said bond
was under Consideration. that there are
a great many omissions and Inaccuracies
in the abstract a. first made and
published.
To Illustrate. take at random few
OF tho statements therein and compare
them with the facts. In doing this II
should be remembered that in arriving
az the approximate value OF the real
property owned by the surefies. the
county commissioners acting upon proper
atvice, doubled the assessed valuation.
The surety represented In the second
line Of the first column signed for Slo.ao.
with property assessed At $5.045. which
il mortgaged for $500. Now the facts
are that in making that statement the
auditor omitted 20 list properly which. tn
addition to that given was assessed last
year at $500. and an affidavit was pre-
sensed 10 the commissioners made by
the gentleman who holds II. that the
amount due On the $500 mortgage had
been paid. excepting the sum OF $3.50.
The surety represented In the fifth line.
first column appears as having signed the
bond for $500 without having any prop
erty whatever. The fact is. and 1t was
proven to the satisfaction Of the board
OF county commissioners. that the surely
OWES real estate In this county which has
an assessed valuation this year Of $3.50.
The surety represented IN the sixth line.
first column a. having property valued
at only s. 100, while he became surety
in the sum Of zoo. II was shown thar
the person designated owned valuable
real estate IN Snohonish county. and also
personal property in this county. other
numbered and OF q value much greater
than double the sum for which he be-
came surety.
The ninth line, first column. shows q
valuation OF $3.50. with mortgage Tor
$500. 1t was shown that the greater part
OF this mortgage had been paid and that
the person indicated was good and suffi-
cient surety for the sum OF $500.
The second line. second column, shows
property valued at $2.l20, mortgaged for
$1,000, on the strength Of which the Dor
SON became surety for $4,000. It WIS
shown that the surety owned valuable
real property In other counties In this
state. that he owned stock In corpora
tions In this state and that one OF She
lot Of land which was listed by tho
auditor, in said report, as being as
sessed at . valuation OF 500, was In fact
assessed at q valuation OF $1,000.
The sixth line. second column. shows
a property qualification of s76O. which Is
incumbered for 1884. It was shown thar
the surety in question was possessed Of
and was assessed on peronal property
In this county valued at $4,000. and that
the fncumbrancs named does not exist
In fact.
The surety who signed the bond for
$4,000 and whose raffairs'' are given
prominence by a special and itemized
statement. made a personal explanation
of the value and condition Of his property
and debts to the chairman Of the board
OF county commissioners. In which lie
showed that the report was misleading
and unreliable. and the chairman ex-
pressed himself as satisfied that he waS
a good surety for the sum named.
And SO / might go down the list, cit
ing surety after surety where similar
conditions exist as in those given. In
every instance referred TO. as well as In
many others not mentioned. the county
COMMISSIONERS. after explanation. agreed
that. notwithstanding the showing made
on the face OF the auditors report, the
sureties were good and sufficient for the
amounts In which they had become
bound.
In conclusion desire to state that
the sureties on my first bond who were,
after explanation, rejected by the board
OF county commissioners. are not sureties
on the last bond filed by me. with he
exception OF q few who became sur.ties
for less amounts than before and who,
according to the auditors report. 1r>
good for the amounts for which they
obligate themselves.
JOHN w. MAPLE.