The Struggle for Rails and Revenue in Pioneer Seattle
An editorial chastising local property holders for failing to invest in their own infrastructure, warning that without local buy-in, Seattle’s growth remains a hostage to outside capital.
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.
Mr. Jesse W. George is engaged in soliciting subscriptions to the loan proposed by the Seattle and Walla Walla Railroad Company for the completion of the first section of their road. As an investment, none could be safer or more certain in its results. The loan is abundantly secured, not only by the present real assets of the company, but by the road and its equipments when completed. Abundant paying freights are secured beyond peradventure or doubt. The cost of completing and equipping the fifteen miles of road cannot certainly exceed $120,000. The moment it is in running condition, not less than 1,000 tons of coal a day will be ready for transportation over it. This, at the low figure of 50 cents a ton, would amount to $150,000 a year of 300 working days. The running expenses would not exceed $100 a day, which would leave a net income of $80,000 a year, all of which is pledged for the payment of interest and the final redemption of the bonds. Can any investment command a better or more certain security? The people of Seattle must themselves show their faith by their works before they can induce outsiders to invest. It is always the part of wisdom to profit by experience. Selfish considerations stepped in previously; the property-holders thought they could profit on the capital of others without contributing anything themselves. The result has been what any sensible man might have foreseen. The property holder who refuses to bear his share of a project so manifestly for his own as well as for the public interest, lacks both public spirit and common honesty. He should be regarded and treated as a public enemy.
“The property holder who refuses to bear his share of a project so manifestly for his own as well as for the public interest, lacks both public spirit and common honesty.”
This 1876 editorial reflects the perennial Seattle tension between private wealth and public infrastructure. Much like today’s debates over transit levies and housing bonds, the writer argues that local developers and property owners have a moral obligation to 'show their faith' in the city’s future rather than waiting for external forces to build the foundation for their own profits.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.