The 1895 Push to Split Seattle From King County

'Sooner or later Seattle and King County must be divided,' was a remark made by Ferdinand Toklas at the regular meeting of the Chamber of Commerce last evening, and the sentiment met with heartiest approval and formed the kernel of the discussion. The meeting was attended by a number of the new legislators, and before adjournment Mr. Toklas, Dr. G. M. Weed and Hon. Roger S. Greene were appointed a committee to present the matter to the board of trustees, and if approved by them to draft a bill for submission to the legislature.

The meeting had been announced as an informal discussion of the new laws and needed amendments, and the legislators were present by special invitation. The question came up during remarks on the condition of affairs in the Seattle school district and the difficult problems relating to expenditures. Thomas W. Prosser said the county districts of the state had insisted that the cities, particularly Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane, had the advantage, and for proof pointed to the fine school buildings. In fact, the cities had taxed themselves to secure the buildings, and Seattle was now on that account $700,000 in debt, while in the three cities the debt was more than twice that sum. During general remarks the advantages of the proposed division were pointed out: with a county practically conforming to the city, a great saving could be effected by rolling the two systems into one. Mr. Weed said he had considered the question for some time, and Jacob Furth thought the change, while perhaps not immediately advisable, would in time become necessary.

In reference to the schools, Director King said nothing could be done until some provision had been made to wipe out the floating debt. He was in favor of going not one cent beyond the limit of debt, and thought all employees in the schools should be engaged with the distinct understanding that when the funds run out the employment ceases. After calling the attention of the legislators to the condition of affairs, he said: 'The school board should live upon its income. If we were to live strictly up to the letter of the law, the schools of this city would close down tomorrow. I would like a law to be passed making it a penal offense for directors to exceed the limit of debt.' Mr. King, however, was far from favoring the proposition to close the schools. It was better to go along as at present and gradually wipe out the debt. Mr. Furth took much the same view, and thought the debt should be funded at a lower rate of interest, although the proposition had once been rejected by the people. Others favored radical improvements in the law.

Mr. Toklas was of the opinion that something ought to be done to keep the board in check, and referred to the loose conditions governing the city of Seattle to show what had been done by the board. It was the only town, he said, that possessed such great powers—that it could draw bills that could go unquestioned. The system, said Mr. Graves, was radically wrong. The directors, it was true, submitted an estimate of expenses to the taxpayers, but there was no power to control the estimate. Of course, after the 15 per cent limit had been proved, any debt could be contracted, and there should certainly be some check upon expenditures of that nature. The county commissioners were both legislative and administrative, and their powers were too great for the general good.

Judge Greene himself spoke on the subject of retrenchment, favoring the paring off of all unnecessary fees. For instance, it was absurd, he said, to compel a public officer to obtain an acknowledgment of a public act, as in the case of a deed. There were other small fees, but he thought the outrageous law was the one fixing a 15 per cent penalty for delinquency in tax payments. 'The effect,' he said, 'is to take property out of the hands of the poor, to wrest from them the means of maintaining their homes, and to transfer their holdings into the hands of the rich.' Mr. Knox favored a simple statutory code covering both city and county property, so that a transfer could be made without recopying in the instrument an entire city ordinance.

The $2 per day fees of jurors was also touched upon, and there was a sentiment that expenses could be cut in many other particulars. John Ham thought radical reductions could be made in mileage fees, and cited an instance of a county officer charging $6 for mileage when his fees were not justified. Judge Greene said the 25 per cent mileage allowance was too large under present statutes; five cents a mile was enough. The subject of borrowings in the county and city systems—the matter of five county courts to three—and the advisability of a new system of corporation of such matters were also brought up. Frank Hanford said he believed a law could be made to have the 15 per cent provision enforced, but took the stand that to do so would impose a great and unjust burden upon every taxpayer.

E. O. Graves brought up a bill he had prepared authorizing the board of aldermen and commission to act, and the proposed measure received the indorsement of the meeting. The following legislators were present: Senator J. W. Range and Representatives Colona T. Williams, J. W. McDonald, Fred Ullman, A. J. Goddard, Ellis McIvor, S. R. Netherton, R. B. Albertson and George B. Kittinger. Senator Belknap of Spokane County was also in attendance and entered into the discussion.