The Streetcar Company Promised a Double Track. Yesler Avenue Wanted It Now.

Another lively meeting of the city council committee was held yesterday afternoon to consider the request of the Yesler Avenue cable railway for an extension of one year in which to double its track. Aldermen Sweeney, Lovejoy, Compton and Mills were present. Manager [name unclear] of the road and Andrew T. Burleigh represented the company; A. P. Warner appeared for Fred E. Sander and other petitioners, while Mr. Sander and Harold Preston spoke for the bondholders and trustees.

A. P. Warner told the committee that the company was bound to double-track the avenue. 'I am not howling about corporations,' he said, 'but I want them to do as they agreed. People bought property from Fred E. Sander along the road, paid him for it, and expected the company to make the improvements it promised. It is said the company will not build until it has the money, but the tracks should be put in. Capital can be found in this city to double-track these streets.'

Warner said residents had built homes on the hill overlooking Lake Union on the faith that within five years the company would be compelled to perform the terms of its franchise and double-track the road. They had counted on the improvement and expected their property to rise in value. The company, he argued, should be compelled to do as it agreed.

Fred E. Sander was called. He disputed the suggestion that former owners had made fortunes out of the road. He said property along the line was not worth what it would be if the road were double-tracked. Three years earlier he had paid $15,000 for three lots at the corner of Seventh Street and Yesler Avenue, and if the line were double-tracked his property would be worth as much as property in the same location on Madison Street.

Sander recalled that the same bondholders now asking for an extension had once given him only five days to pay interest, then put the road in the hands of a receiver. 'When they so lightly consider the interest of the people,' he said, 'the people should not be so eager to consider their convenience.' He did not think the road was paying anything; if it was meeting expenses, that was all.

Asked how the committee could force the company to build the extra track, Sander said the company would have a hard time doing it. He did not know its finances. If it refused to build, the city could take away the franchise and let another road have it. He thought that if the road could be double-tracked now, the shareholders would put up a first-class road because it would be in the line of policy.

Andrew T. Burleigh said he had nothing new to offer; the facts had been produced at the last meeting. Harold Preston stated that he owned five acres in the original city and that the building of the line had increased the value of his holdings tenfold. The road was a great benefit, he said, and an extension of time would not injure anyone.

A. P. Warner, though he had his fighting clothes on, did not appear to frighten the corporation men much when he darkly intimated that there was a lawsuit in the wind. The committee adjourned to consider the matter again at some future time.