Who Gets to Rewrite Seattle's Charter — the Council or the People?

Definite action on charter revision will be taken by a joint committee of the two houses of the common council almost immediately after the holidays. This was assured yesterday afternoon after a prolonged hearing of the committees, with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Merchants' Association, the Municipal League and other citizens. The discussion was informal, but a great many questions were asked back and forth, the councilmen manifesting the deepest interest in all that was said. Any encroachment upon time was avoided by the passage of a motion, as soon as the meeting was called to order, that no one be allowed more than ten minutes until all who wished to talk had been heard from, and in consequence a great number of visitors gained the floor. There was a considerable audience in attendance.

Some of the speakers severely criticised the Chamber of Commerce for what was termed its "somersault" in changing its attitude toward the bill which was killed by the late legislature. Dr. Ramsey led the assault and was followed by William H. White, John R. Kinnear and others. They were answered, however, by E. O. Graves, who denied that the Chamber of Commerce stood in fear of the people, and who stated that the object of having the council prepare the proposed changes was to secure a trial charter without unnecessary expense and at small cost.

Will Not Build a Skeleton.

In the midst of the discussion the following communication was read from John J. McGilvra, Dexter Horton, W. G. Armstrong, John R. Kinnear, N. H. Latimer and William H. White, a committee of the Municipal League:

"We feel compelled most respectfully to decline your invitation to submit to you the skeleton of a revised city charter for this city, such as we think should be framed and adopted under the provisions of senate bill No. 312. As we understand the provisions of that act, your duties are simply to call an election for the selection of fifteen freeholders for charter revision. You have an option to do this on your own motion, or at the suggestion of any interested parties, without petition. Unless you choose to do this, the law does not require you to act until you are moved by the proper petition, in which case you have no option, the law requiring you to order the election. We have no power, and you have no power, to bind the charter by constructing skeletons of charters or completed and full-fledged charters. If such skeletons are intended for the purpose of advancing or promoting any other mode of amending or revising our city charter than that provided for in said senate bill No. 312, we have no suggestions to make."

Wants the Council to Revise.

The first speaker was Jacob Furth, who, in response to a call from the audience, stated that he appeared as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and wished to discuss the question "How to Proceed", as everybody conceded that the charter should be changed. At a meeting of the chamber the sentiment had prevailed, he said, with but little opposition, that the question could well be left to the direction of the committee of the council. It was thought that this committee could more intelligently handle revision than any committee of fifteen freeholders. The councilmen should take plenty of time and receive suggestions from every citizen that should come before them.

He Would Trust the People.

Quite a contrary view to that expressed by Mr. Furth was had by Dr. Ramsey, who took the floor. He insisted that the Chamber of Commerce had turned a complete somersault, and for himself was firmly convinced that the action taken Tuesday was wrong. It was in the line of fear of the common people, assuming that they were not to be relied upon. There arose in the controversy the old question as to power in the few or in the masses. He paid a tribute to the councilmen, saying he thought they could be relied on. "But," he continued, "if you presume to say to the people that they shall not do this thing, that 'we'll do it ourselves,' I think you are in a wrong position. I can only say to you, do right as you go, and trust the public." There was no fear of the people, of Republicans or Democrats, or any other political organization. Like the Pilgrim fathers, they would probably be found arraigned and harmless. Dr. Ramsey closed his speech by saying that what the people wanted was the best, the most economical and the simplest charter.

William H. White said the reason the Chamber of Commerce had gone straight back on its own propositions was that it was a conservative body of men. "If you ever heard of a reform from conservatives," he said, "point out the page of history that records it." Reforms were invariably accomplished by radical men and advanced thinkers, and they were always opposed by the conservatives, who were afraid of the people being too radical in their changes. Turning to the assembled councilmen, Mr. White called out in his most emphatic tone, accompanied by a gesture of unusual magnitude, "If one is to judge the future by the past, the people ought to be afraid of you."

The Cost of an Election.

Mr. White had also remarked that according to his figuring the cost of an election would not exceed a few thousand dollars. The question had been brought up by W. G. Armstrong, who had said that the estimate of one hundred thousand dollars made by a speaker at a former meeting was simply ridiculous. During the remainder of the meeting considerable discussion gathered about this point, but the acme was reached when E. J. Jeffries solemnly declared that $1,990,390 was not too great an expense, particularly if the city thereby secured a perfect charter. Mr. Armstrong further thought that the real question before the meeting hinged on the proposition of the council going behind a legislative enactment providing that the matter should be left to the freeholders.

Lee B. Hart said there were two questions to be settled: first, should revision be partial or entire; and second, should it be made by the freeholders or the council. Mr. Hart mentioned "a body known as the Chamber of Commerce," and, referring to its mistrust of the people, said the mistrust was reciprocal. He concluded: "I don't come as a suppliant, but simply to ask that the council carry out the wishes of their constituents, as indicated by the party platforms, that a simpler and more economical charter be given."

John Bushell took the floor and proceeded to pummel Mr. White, who, he declared, had acted in some respects more like a schoolboy than an eminent attorney. In reference to the council, he had heard a report that an agreement had been made by seven members of each house to defeat the appointment of a committee of fifteen. He thought there was no occasion for hurry, but insisted on thoroughness. "We have tried a committee of freeholders, or some other holders," he said, "and now we have a charter we all are tired of." He didn't believe the election could be held for any three or four thousand dollars, but thought the cost would be about the same as an ordinary election.

John R. Kinnear, after explaining how he had supported the bill because it had received the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce and the Municipal League, said that the Chamber of Commerce should stand up and take its own medicine. He thought it advisable that the council should call an election at once. Speeches were also made by M. J. Carstens, E. O. Graves, John J. McGilvra, W. F. Knox, W. J. Larkin and David Hawley.

Two of the People at Least.

When the visitors had finished talking, Councilman Daulton explained at considerable length the expenses of the city government, and further expressed a willingness that so far as he was concerned the matter might go before the people. Delegate Voigt thought the people preferred that the question remain in the hands of the councilmen, and he criticised to some extent the action of some citizens in coming before the council and saying they represented a large number of people.

Dr. Ramsey here arose and, pointing his index finger at the councilman, said most impressively, "Vox populi, vox Dei."

"Don't talk Latin to me," answered Voigt.

"But the people are at last with you."

"Do you claim to be the people?" asked Voigt.

"I represent one of them," said the doctor.

"And I represent another, and there's a stand-off," was the delegate's reply; and the tilt between the two, which at one or two stages was quite amusing, was at an end.

Voigt went considerably into the details of the city government, and made a just defense of the position of the two houses. Indeed, a majority of the council seemed to favor fulfilling the wish of the people just as soon as that can be determined.