The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1921-07-07
EDIT O R | A L

"a two c0nciusioS
w. won of courage who is ready to
s.st 70 the limit for what he believes
= rieht. Even his political enemies
Sut admire him for his determi-
- zion to stick by the ship until she
M ..hor weathers the storm or goes un-
m ~ While he is ready to admit that
w. s.hons he has made mistakes and
.-od in Judgment he feels that he has
Noon guilty of no serious wrong, con-
.scuently . he is unwilling to run to
.ror before the hub-bub raised by
-, ,ersonal and political enemies.
< Secondly, it must be admitted that
,,s recall has just about petered out.
40 .,tor months of effort with a grand
.,,r one or more state accountants,
.rd special legal talent on the job;
.fter the county records have been in
.racted. Investigated, and combed
,rsr behold the charges the recallers
bring forth.
Nm the first count Commissioner
pratt is accused of entering into a
conspiracy to graft from the county
auds some part, the recallers do not
know how much, of S27.5O. Some con-
,niracy! The accusation is so petty,
a. childish as to be absurd to all those
who know Mr.. Pratt even though they
are not his friends. Even here there
i no charge that the county was de-
frauded. The labor for which the
county paid was actually performed.
The accusation is that part of the
so7.5O came back to French for the
use Of his team. If this be true
French was guilty of a technical vio-
lation of the law. But nowhere from
beginning to end of the recall charg-
es is there so much as an intimation
that Pratt ever received one penny
that did not rightfully belong to him.
Mr.. Pratt is further accused of eX-
pending s2500 on the Kennewick-Fin-
ley road by force account when the
law provides for letting a contract
to the lowest bidder. The facts are
that the commissioners issued a call
for bids for this work and no bid was
received. Upon the advise of the
county attorney the board then pro-
ceeded to do the work by force ac-
count. There is no evidence, nor even
hsinuation here, that the county was
defrauded nor that the work was not
economically and efficiently perform
ed.
The recallers accuse Mr.. Pratt of
purchasing Cleveland tractor which
was of no value and from which the
county received no benefit. This is
Just a plain unadulterated lie. The
tractor has been used on the road
grader almost continuously since it
was purchased. 1t has been doing the
work OF six or eight horses and ac-
eordlng to the road supervisor is one
a the most efficient implements ever
purchased by the county. Further
more the tractor was taken on 80 days
Hal and its usefulness demonstrated
slore Pratt requested or the board
adered its purchase. Not only this,
eut the tractor was purchased in 1920
nrlng MIR. Pratt's former term and
eannot legally and properly be con-
Aaered in a recall proceeding. But
were the charge true and proper, were
Ie tractor of no use to the county,
Snat offense did Pratt commit other
uan the exercise of poor judgment? l?
again MIR. Pratt is accused of per-
a'ung DR.. French to purchase two
Iacks at a figure above the market
r'ee' We can read nothing in Com
missioner Pratt's oath of office which
''una nlm to act as DR.. French's
!. suaraian. Nor are we willing to take
~e word of few loud-mouthed indi-
..uuals that the trucks were purchas-
" III excess of the retail price. Any
10Y 'hese trucks were purchased a
.h a, ago and cannot legally be in
''uaed in a recall proceeding.
nnother accusation is that Mr..
n tS'' voted to pay Commissioner
ssench's and Commissioner Bash's ex-
s. ISes TO the state meeting of county
commissioners. Why didn't the grand
n.y.. n.y. or The recallers say in this con-
~ 1on That Commissioner Pratt came
absolutely clean in this deal? He
coa a' 70 the state meeting by train, ac,
uupanled o,a, by Mrs. Pratt and paid his
o expenses although he was really
n, mission for the county. This
fo,, 'ook place during Mr.. Pratt's
'Ormer term.
s,d.y 'ily MIR. Pratt is accused of ov
fuaS f1"lng the general road and bridge
vio,.. IL this be true it is a technical
EEsas;o Etion of the state law. There i:
probib;t state law which seeks tt
drawinn tne Individual from over
dividnaf MS bank account, but the in
Of pat sometimes docs II TT conn.