Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1900-05-18


in which the charge is made that the
: State Board OF Audit and Control is
hostile to the Seattle Manufacturers
Association.
In reply to this, allow me to say
that bids are asked for the list of sup
plies furnished by the officers in
charge Of the different State institu-
tion>. | presume reference is largely
made to the matter of baking powder.
The stewards, cooks and accountants
make up the list of what they want,
and bids are asked in accordance
Herewith. 1t is simply idiotic to say
that the board rules against Washing
ten manufacturers. There is no
ground for the charge. The board de-
sires to furnish whatever is called for,
and if your baking powder manufac-
turcrs will so to the different institu-
tlons, presenting samples to stewards
and cooks, | have no doubt the change
asked for could be made very readily
and easily.
On general principles | should like
very much to have the Washington
manufacturers favored, but | scarcely
think it my duty to go around to the
different Institutions AMI work up
baking powder trade for Seattle man.
ufacturers, who seem to lack the nee
essary business energy.
Very respectfully yours,
(olgned) JOHN r. ROGERS,
Governor.
Here is second letter of the as
sociation to his accidency:
Now, on the supposition that you
have taken the trouble to read these
resolutions again, and your reply
thereto, we would ask. What do you
think OF your reply? Is it consistent
with the matter contained in the reso.
lutions?
We had no intention, when passing
the resolutions, of calling up any mat
ter through which you might vent
your spleen on some line of local
manufactured goods, as you have done
in this case.
This association took up the matter
of State supplies. and passed these
resolutions, and instructed the Secre-
tary OF the association 10 communi-
cate with you, acting under the i'm
preston that they we're addressed to
one who, on account of his position,
was the proper party to address such
matters to, and who by reason of that
position should at least have the
courtesy to look into the matter.
AS to the statement that you make
in your reply, that the charge of hos.
tility to Seattle Manufacturers AS
sociation, it would seem fair and just
that having placed that construction
on the resolutions, that the least you
might have done would be to see if
there existed any ground for the
charge.
We deny the intention OF charging
the Board of Audit and Control with
hostility to Seattle manufacturers,
but We State in the resolutions "that
bids from local manufacturers have
not been given the consideration due,
etc." and we still insist that such is
the case, as it is q well-kn own fact
that many local manufacturers de.
cline to bid ior supplies to the State
institutions simply on account of this
inconsiderate plan that is in vogue
with the State Board of Audit and
Control, and which, judging from the
tone of your letter, is approved of by
the Stale administration. Close
scrutiny Of the resolutions will fail to
! find a single line or even a word that
could be so constructed as to warrant
your unjust and insulting attack
upon local baking powder manufac-
turers, and we would ask where
do you find line that would lead you
to presume that reference is largely
made to the matter of baking powder?
In referring to local manufacturers,
we wish to impress upon you that all
manufacturers in the State of Wash
ington are classed rs local, this as.
sociation being open to all mauiac-
turers OF the State, and is not, as you
would imply, narrowed down to one
community.
You state that bids are asked for
the list of supplies furnished by the
officers in charge OF the different State
institutions and the stewards, and ac-
countants make up the list of what
they want. Why not include the dish
washers and chambermaids? For sure
ly under this plan that should be in
cluded, as the others are hardly compe-
tent to pass upon the wants and
quality of supplies necessary in the
departments of the dishwashers and
chambermaids.
1t certainly was "idiotic" to say
that the board rules against the
Washington manufacturers, but in
our defense let us State that until in
formed on the subject by your ex-
cellency we had no knowledge of the
abdication, of the duties under the
law, of the State Board of Audit and
Control, in favor of the stewards,
cooks, etc.
The impression has always pre-
vailed among the manufacturers and