The Struggle Over City Debt
Business interests push for city bonds to replace high-interest warrants, while political factions threaten to obstruct.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
As the time approaches closely to the bond election, it would seem that some determined effort ought to be made to induce a sufficient number of voters who have the welfare and good name of the city at heart to turn out in force and at least vote for the funding of the outstanding warrants, which are now bearing, and will continue to bear, 10 per cent interest as long as unpaid. Whatever may be the opinions adverse to the other propositions to be submitted, I do not know what reasonable argument can be used against the saving of at least 6 per cent per annum on a debt which is bearing 10 per cent, and must eventually be paid, because the city could under no circumstances afford to repudiate an obligation contracted for improvements after the great fire, and the money largely paid to laborers, mechanics and artisans. I am informed that a certain political faction proposes to defeat the bonding if possible. This is not a question of politics, and the credit of the city ought not to be impaired by a failure to carry the proposition to be submitted on June 6.
“This is not a question of politics, and the credit of the city ought not to be impaired by a failure to carry the proposition.”
Debates over municipal bonding and fiscal responsibility have been a constant in Seattle politics since the Great Fire of 1889. The tension between necessary infrastructure investment and political obstruction remains a core theme in current civic arguments about city bonds and taxation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.