Seattle and Tacoma Nearly Came to Blows Over the Ship Canal

[King County's delegate] had no place in politics, and King had submitted and did not ask for endorsement of the improvement, but now Pierce, at the outset, wanted condemnation of the canal.

R. J. Flynn, of Spokane, argued that a large section of the state wanted the canal, and the Democratic party could not afford to refuse the prayer of so important a community as King County.

Jeremiah J. Brown, of Pacific, asserted that for the Democrats to dodge the issue was cowardice. The majority report already approved the Republican platform.

A. H. Game, of Snohomish, declared that, though the name of the Snohomish committeeman was on the minority report, the county was against it. The anti-canal plank was against public improvements throughout the whole state.

W. D. Crook, of Spokane, regarded the canal as a luxury. He asked what suggested to the mind of the farmer, in the majority report, the phrase 'private enterprise?' Did any man's conscience prick him?

J. A. Strong, of Whatcom, explained that the majority of his delegation was not for the anti-canal plank, though his committeeman had signed it.

H. B. Blandford, of Walla Walla, added his voice for an honest plank and not a straddle.

John P. Judson, of Pierce, thought it was not a question of Pierce and King, but a question of resenting the insult in the Republican platform to Democrats in Congress. Would the Democrats of Washington desert their brethren in the nation? The condition of the Democratic party in King was a side matter.

H. J. Snively, of Yakima, chairman of the committee on resolutions, stated that the Whatcom committeeman had signed the minority report under a misapprehension and wished to change.

E. H. Hill, of Whatcom, corroborated Mr. Snively, and told how his delegation had been won to the majority report, and the change was made on this account. M. J. Maloney, of Whatcom, thought something strange had happened to his delegation, for the county convention had been against the canal.

William Goodyear, of Whitman, said that though the majority of his delegation was for the anti-canal resolution, he was not. M. B. Kelly, of Whitman, tartly retorted that Mr. Goodyear had come in on a proxy. Mr. Goodyear added that he had two proxies, and he had a chance to be elected as a regular delegate.

H. J. Snively said that King county had wanted a plank favoring the canal; Pierce wanted one against the canal; while Spokane had proposed the compromise in the majority report. Outside of Pierce and King the delegates cared nothing for the petty quarrels of the two counties, and the state convention should not favor one county and humiliate the other. The convention should not insult King county merely to gratify the spite of Pierce. If Pierce claimed the canal was a private enterprise, the majority plank denounced it. If the canal were a public enterprise, the convention could not afford to denounce it and place itself on record against public improvements in every county in the state.

The vote was then taken [by counties]. Total: 162 for the majority report, 167 for the anti-canal plank.

When it was known that the anti-canal plank had been adopted and King county insulted by a vote of 167 to 162, the convention turned itself into a mob. The Pierce county men stood on their chairs and yelled for several minutes, while King county sat sullen. When quiet was in a measure restored, J. T. Ronald, of King, rose and attempted to move an adjournment. The Pierce county braves and their adherents shouted and waved their hats in an effort to drive him to his seat. The King delegates rose to their feet and frantically howled. L. C. Oilman, James F. McElroy, S. S. Carlisle, Joe Livingston, John W. Considine and others surged toward Pierce and, shaking their fists, declared that Mr. Ronald would be heard if it was necessary to fight in order to give him the floor. For several minutes it looked as if there would be a regular knock-down and drag-out. Ronald at last got the floor and moved an adjournment. He was ruled out of order because the vote had not been announced.

The vote was then announced, and Junius Rochester offered an amendment striking out the canal plank. He was ruled out of order, on the ground that no business had intervened since the plank was adopted.

The din broke out afresh. There was an appeal from the decision of the chair, and the hall was in a terrible uproar. The noise grew yet louder when R. C. Hill moved to reconsider the vote adopting the anti-canal plank. He said five King men wanted to change their votes and be against the anti-canal plank, instead of for it.

The motion to reconsider was carried by a vote of 177 to 154. In the roll King lost three votes and gained eighteen. The principal changes were in Kitsap and Thurston counties.

It was now King's turn to cheer, while Pierce sat silent. An unsuccessful attempt was made to adjourn, and also to lay the matter on the table. Over each motion there was a fresh outbreak of disorder, and appeals from the decision of the chair were frequent — almost as frequent as the occasions when Junius Rochester lost his temper.

Pierce county fought desperately to stave off a vote, finally accepting the plank in the majority report, and all the parliamentary tactics at the command of such a veteran as Stephen Judson were employed to that end. Personal altercations between him and Junius Rochester occurred several times.

By a vote of 173 to 154 the anti-canal plank was finally rejected and, at 1:20 o'clock in the morning, the convention adjourned until 10:30 o'clock. The vote finally adopting the platform has yet to be taken, and Pierce declares she will fight on it yet.