The Great Courthouse Debate

To the Editor: At each of the late meetings at the courthouse, I was an interested, if not much edified, listener to the discussion of the location of the new county buildings. To a newcomer, without present personal interest in the result of the controversy, it was amusing to note the heat displayed by the partisans of the different proposed sites. Partisans of a central location accused the advocates of the Seventh street site as being financially interested, while the defenders of the hill retorted with accusations of railway interests held by the other side. King County is rich. Her capital city is the metropolis of a state coming into the Union with a singular promise of wealth and power. That the chief public building of such a county should be both useful and ornamental goes without saying. Unfortunately, the natural configuration of the ground in Seattle denies that the greatest beauty of situation shall be combined with facility of access. When use and beauty go to war, it is hard to patch up a peace. Is not the utilitarian's view the better one? It is the ceaseless recurrence of the unpleasant experience of climbing the hill, in heat, cold, dust, and rain, that renders the evil formidable. It is not the trouble of one man, or one set of men, that is worthy to be considered; it is the sum of trouble to the whole people, running through a long reach of years, that rises to the dignity of public concern. It can scarcely be hoped that the lofty site advocated by the partisans of the hill will often be visited save under the lash of necessity.