The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1909-09-27
Attorney Roney Says He
Is the Man Who Put up
$3.50 in Order to Get
House Moving Permit
From City Board. +

I p. A. Roney is The man who paid
] 10 some enploye u the city. pre-
suinably connected with the streets
and sewers department. $50 for a
permit % move his lodging house
from $40 First av s., between Hol-
gate aud Walker sts.. 10 nearby
lot.
4. V. Bouillon. superintendent Of
public utilities, diyulged this story
OF graft today. after Mayor Miller
had declined 10 hear his Witnesses
I or listen 70 Mr. Roney's statement
from his own lips.
IN a letter 10 his superior,
Mr.. Bouilion named three Of the
parties who participated IN the
transaction. e. a. Ronev.
through his brother, Attorney
NED Roney, who made the ORIG.
mai application fer the permit,
paid the $3.50 to a ward heeler
known only as Anderson. who
Kept $50 for himself and turned
the remaining 500 over to some
ore yet unknown 10 either Bou-
ilion or Rcney
The superintendent OF uublic nth.
luee. who was first informed OF the
graft deal BY Louis stuIl. president
81 tie Washington Abstract & Guar.
anty company. while riding recently
on street car. has repeatedly en-.
deavored 10 induce Mayor Miller 10
hear his Witnesses Falling Ia This
he decided that through Mr. Roney
me public should be Acquainted
with the facts In the case
Attorney Ned Roney. speaking
Tor his brother. declared TODAY that
the money was purely graft.
Yes. paid a man named
Anderson $50 10 get me a NOV
ing permit" he said. "Althouoh
the permit was rejected at one
time u was granted by the
board Of public works al IN.
meeting following the payment
Of the money.
After my brother had acquired
ownership Of the building in aues-
ton he was given 30 many DAYS I'm
which 10 remove Il from the site II
occupied az that time. At the expi-
ration OF that time he was To nav
the owners OF the lot SIS a dav
Tor each day IL remained there.
Applied to maloney.
My, brother asked me TO get
him a moving permit. applied to
NJ. T. Maloney, superintendent Of
streets. and he practically promised
that Il would be granted When IL
came up AZ the board meeting I WIS
told that hadn't advertised for IL.
After ! had advertised | was In
formed at the next meeting OF the
board that ! should have advertised
twice did so
Other objections were raised.
One was that ] hadn't obtained per
mits from the Great Northern and
Northern Pacific railroads TO cross
their tracks with the house. | had
already secured these permits FL
nally, at a subsequent meeting OF
the board. Superintendent Maloney
moved that the applications for the
permit be rejected.
City Engineer r. III. Thomson
NbANN Win hiiAAs dhh 0i1H trh II.
'Some time later D. e. Riley.
who conducted the lodging
house, came to me and said he
knew a man who could obtain
the permit, but that u might
cost $3.50. 7 asked Riley to
send the man 10 me. This man,
whom | know as Anderson, a
ward heller. called on me.
Can YOU get this permit? l
asked OF him.
Yes, for $3.50, was his propo-
sition.
DO you mean to brihe the
board OF public works.? | queried.
No, not exactly that. but | must
have $3.50 You need not give me
the money until the permit is plac-
ed in your hand said Anderson.
Who Got the Hundred9
II was curious TO know If this
kind of work was going on" con-
tinued MFR. Rooney. so | agreed to
give him the money he asked for.
AZ the next meeting Of the board,
on February 10, 1909. the permit
was granted. gave Anderson the
$3.50. lie told me that $50 of IL
was for himself, and that the re-
mainder would be handed TO some
other person The name of that
person or persons he would not
divulge"
In his letter to the mayor today
Mr. Bouillon says.
1.-THE gentleman from whom
I obtained the information in
the first place is Mr.. Louis
Stuli, president Q. the Wash.
inston Abstract q Guaranty
Company. The permit in ques-
tion was one for moving
building applied for by MIR. E.
A. Roney. denied Feb. 9. 1909,
reeonsidered and ordered read
vertised Feb. 10, 1909, and
granted Feb. 10, 1909. The
transaction was handled by MIR.
Ned Roney, o the firm of
Rooney & Loveless, lawyers, COG
Oriental building, Seattle, who
confided to me on the 23rd
inst. In conversation the essen
tial features in the case.
While I remain Of the opinion
that my communication Of the
23rd inst. was sufficiently