The Renters and the Landless: Seattle’s Early Conflict over Property

From one standpoint, upon the hill, one of the business portions of the city, fifty houses are unaccounted in the course of construction, and this, too, during the most unpropitious month of the year for building. During the first year, the productive business of this town has been nearly or quite doubled, the population increased at least twenty-five per cent, and real values have increased in proportion. All this has been done without scarcely an effort on the part of the older property-holders, whose property has been doubled upon their hands without themselves contributing anything towards the increase. From Balltown to the Snohomish Bay, four-fifths of the mills, machine shops, and manufacturing establishments are run by men who but recently, if now, have had or have any proprietorship in the real estate which they are improving, while four-fifths of the real estate is owned by non-producers. Of course, we do not state these facts by way of reproof or complaint. We fully recognize the right of every man to the enjoyment of his own possessions, honestly acquired. But, as Ike Hall would say: What reciprocity is there in that, where one party creates all the values and another party reaps all the benefits of the increase? Individual rights are sacred, but the rule which governs communities is the higher law of necessity. Where the common interests or the common defense is concerned, those who will not volunteer must be drafted; and the rights of property are certainly not paramount to the rights of person. The greatest public benefactor in this city—the man who has contributed more to its material wealth than any other—is but the lessee of the manufacturing establishment which he operates. It is hardly necessary to say, in this community, that James M. Colman is that man.