The Streetcar Men Asked Seattle to Set Their Wages. The City's Lawyer Said No.
A union petition to write conductor and motorman pay into the street railway franchise ran into the corporation counsel's constitutional wall — so the council sent it back to committee to try again as an ordinance.
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.
Both houses of the city council held long sessions last evening and got through a large amount of routine business. The board of aldermen heard the report of the committee on the petition of the street railroads, who want the street railway franchises so amended that salaries of employees shall be fixed by the council as well as fares for the public.
The committee's report was based on the written opinion of Corporation Counsel Scott, who showed that the action would be illegal and unconstitutional. The street railroad employees were represented and made a fight for their petition, and the matter was finally referred back to the committee with instructions to frame an ordinance.
The committee on railroads, to which was referred the petition of several hundred citizens in relation to so amending the franchises of the street railway companies as will compel the companies to pay a sum not less than a fixed rate per hour to all men employed as conductors, motormen and freight men, reported as follows: That after having had a meeting on June 20, 1894, at which several persons were heard, the petitions were referred to the corporation counsel for a legal opinion, and your committee, feeling that his opinion has the weight of authority, respectfully concur with the opinion of the corporation counsel.
The opinion was to the effect that the private companies could not be interfered with or be compelled to contract at fixed wages, it being the invariable right of every citizen under the constitution to fix the wages of his employees. H. H. Wooden, the secretary of the Street Railway Union, addressed the council, asking for the adoption of their petition notwithstanding the opinion of the corporation counsel, whose opinion he thought conflicted with many legal authorities. He thought that if the aldermen amended the ordinance as asked for they would have it passed by the courts, and then secure state legislation on the subject.
Corporation Counsel Scott maintained that any such action on the part of the council would be unconstitutional and only complicate matters and create unnecessary litigation. After some more desultory talk the report of the committee failed to pass, and the papers were referred back to Dalton to draw an ordinance amending the franchise.
The long-pending bill relative to the indigent sick was finally adopted. The house of delegates had up the employment bureau abuses matter, and after a long debate it was referred to Mayor Phelps. The purchase of fire hose also created a long discussion but resulted in no contract. The petition of the Liquor Dealers' Association for a reduction of the yearly licenses from $1,000 to $500 was favorably reported on by the aldermen, but failed in the house and was referred back to the committee.
“It being the invariable right of every citizen under the constitution to fix the wages of his employes.”
In the depths of the 1893 depression, Seattle's streetcar men tried to make the city itself guarantee their hourly rate through the franchise — and were told the constitution protected the company's right to set wages. A century and a quarter later the same argument is still being litigated, as Seattle tries to attach labor standards to the private contractors who run its transit, deliver its packages and drive its app-based cars.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.