Same Streets
← All stories

The Night Seattle Fought Over Its Streetlights

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen turns into a tense negotiation with the Union Electric Company over the terms, safeguards and cost of lighting the city.

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.

The Board of Aldermen held a special meeting last evening to clear the table of unfinished business. The committee on street lights made its report and recommended a number of amendments to the specifications prepared by the Board of Public Works, which are to govern the contract for lighting the city for the coming fiscal year. The chairman said the committee had only had time to go through about one-half the specifications. The result was a motion for a joint meeting of the light committees of the two houses to be held at 1 tomorrow afternoon. A number of ordinances were passed, and the ordinance ordering the purchase of fire hose, drafted in accordance with the committee's report, was turned down. Miller, Jordan, Daulton and Clise voted against it. The following communication was read from the Union Electric Company: 'At the request of the joint committee on street lights of the council (for the purpose of securing sufficient time to advertise for and secure bids for lighting the streets of the city for the ensuing year) the Union Electric Company hereby submits an offer and agrees to continue lighting the streets of the city of Seattle at the same rate as now charged under the present contract, for a period of thirty days, or sixty days from the date of expiration of the present contract, provided any legislation necessary to secure the payment for the same is enacted by the city council.' Anderson, as chairman of the committee on lights, reported a number of amendments to the specifications for lighting the streets of the city, in substance as follows: 'That the service as adopted by the council and presented to the board of public works shall not at any time be increased more than 10 per cent, and no increase after June 1 unless under special contract; that no discontinuance of light shall be ordered during the entire existence of the contract; that all new lamps or changed lamps be suspended over street intersections; to strike the words they shall be washed as frequently as necessary; that incandescent lamps cannot be increased more than 10 per cent of the number contracted for and no increase shall be made after June 1 of the following year unless specially contracted for; that light ordered shall be erected in the shortest possible time.' President Kilbourne, of the Union Electric Company, addressed the aldermen to the effect that the specifications as presented were such as his company could not possibly live up to without a heavy loss. The company would co-operate with the city in an effort to secure the lowest possible results, but they must be allowed to consult with the city as one business man would consult another; then the best results would accrue to the city. He did not want his company treated as if it was composed of robbers. Its members were well-known business men of integrity and standing, and all his company wanted was to be protected in its payments and to prevent the promiscuous changes of lights at the discretion of the council, which, if allowed to be carried out, would ruin any company in existence. His company was ready to furnish good lights, but it required the protection that one business arm had a right to expect from another business house. He wanted to bid in a manner to give the most light for the least money. Compton said the council could not throw too many safeguards around its contracts, especially where such a large amount of money was involved. Dr. Kilbourne was willing that all necessary safeguards should be thrown around city contracts, but these contracts should not be hampered with specifications that were of no practical use or protection to the city. Dr. Jordan suggested that Dr. Kilbourne should submit two propositions—one covering the specifications as proposed by the board of public works and another to meet the ideas of the Union Electric Company. Dr. Kilbourne said his company would gladly furnish its own specifications and figures if the city would advertise for bids on its own specifications. A motion was then passed that the light committee of the aldermen should meet the same committee from the house, and, after a conference with the board of public works, report next Monday evening. The joint committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow. The following ordinances were acted on: Franchise to Thomas Burke to lay wires to furnish light, heat and power; passed. Establishing grade of Harrison street; passed. Establishing grade of Willow street; passed. Vacating Dyer avenue, from Depot street to supplementary plat of Pontius' addition; passed. Vacating deed from Margaret J. Pontius; passed. Authorizing issuing to George T. Wilson a warrant in lieu of fire fund warrant issued to S. Baxter Co. November 14, 1890, for $317.78, which was lost. Authorizing the purchase of fire hose; rejected. Authorizing the return of $13.57 to A. Vermune on account of music license revoked; passed. Authorizing sale of unclaimed property in police department; passed.

“He did not want his company treated as if it was composed of robbers. Its members were well-known business men of integrity and standing.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894
Then · 1894132 years apartNow · 2026

Utility franchises and public contracts are still where City Hall and private monopolies test each other. The 1891 fight over lamp placement, rate guarantees and contract terms anticipates today's debates over Seattle City Light, franchise fees and who controls the grid.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-12. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, SEP 12, 1894, Page 3
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60323, -122.33028 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗