The City’s Wallet vs. The Streetcar Barons: Seattle Votes on Who Owns the Rails

A POLL OF THE COUNCILMEN On the Questions of a Forty Year Franchise and the Municipal Ownership of Street Railways in This City.

Councilman Leonard Miller is not in favor of a 40-year franchise being granted. He says, "The question is a hard one just now. There are three things which at once occur to me: first, the ability of the authorities; in the next place, the city has not now the means for taking care of the railroads. Six years ago, by a vote of the end of that case if the desires of our city are in such a condition as to warrant such a proposition, then is there municipal ownership?"

Councilman Homer Hill, Postmaster, says, "I am most assuredly in favor of municipal ownership of the street railways of Seattle. I look at it in this way: We are so engaged in Seattle to attract street railways as any city by the world. It has been shown that the railway owners of Seattle have had to reduce the car fare to 5 cents if the city did not take possession of the lines. If none could be adjusted from 10 to 5 cents per ride, it must mean the saving of $1 per year, or $200,000 can come in the street instead of going to foreign owners. Taking the average of the years, would be this: The city has great facilities in the way of water power, and for these funds turn about this item, best and at once."

Councilman E. R. McKeon, Republican, is also for his recent franchise grant of a 40-year franchise. He would not give an opinion upon either subject, but stated that he was interested in thoughts: "Both are important questions, more so than the Order Clearing question." He remarked, "I understand that a poll is being circulated in Seattle which demands that an election shall be held to settle the question of municipal ownership, and the men are fighting to secure the same as per cent of the order. I would be safe to say there will be nothing done by council action or street railway concession until the vote has had a full on the subject."

"If it could be worked out," said Councilman Lynch, Republican, "I would favor municipal ownership." But at present he cannot see how it can occur. "The first thing necessary is for the city to own its own lighting. I have always been in favor of a city light plant. One point against municipal ownership of any part is the transfer to public treasury, but as soon as we have adequate revenue sources created, the difficulty will be avoided. I think in years' time the city will have built up such a franchise that it is not desirable. No committee should keep longer than one council term. Any franchise granted will probably contain a provision for municipal ownership whenever the city wishes to take over."

"Yes, I will favor municipal ownership when the city can afford the expense," was the answer of Councilman Taylor, Republican, "but I do not think one undertake the purchase of the road now. The old franchises, running from 15 to 45 years, would have to be bought up. The corporations should not be in hurry to renew a franchise before the settlement of the NO CABLEGRAM IS TO BE SENT question."

At the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce yesterday afternoon, the committee having charge of the celebration in honor of the Washington volunteers, was authorized to solicit funds for a cablegram to be sent to the boys at Manila, stating that a celebration was being arranged for them here if they would come direct to Seattle instead of going to San Francisco. A. M. K., treasurer of the celebration committee, stated this afternoon that no cablegram would be sent, and that he had done nothing in the way of soliciting funds to send it.

Thomas W. Cross, secretary of the chamber, has made his annual report, which was an interesting resume of the work accomplished by the chamber for the year. The annual election of the chamber will be held Monday morning, and the next meeting will be a week from today instead of next Wednesday.