The Fight to Stop Seattle's Exclusion from the Grain Trade
A proposed legislative bill threatens to reignite old regional rivalries and disadvantage Seattle's grain producers in favor of Tacoma.
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.
It would most certainly be a great mistake to enact the Fellows railroad bill (H. B. No. 20) in its present form. It would, in effect, as a result of its mileage rate clause, restore the old discrimination against Seattle as compared with Tacoma. This would not only be a serious thing for Seattle, but it would also be a serious thing for the Eastern Washington grain producers, since it would inevitably shut out a competitive market. If the grain dealers of Tacoma were given a discrimination of thirty cents per ton or thereabouts (as the bill proposes), they would most certainly use it for their own advantage, and the grain grower would be the loser. Of course, Seattle does not want to be shut out of the grain trade, and it would be a great injury to the state if she were to be. It is not necessary that the Fellows bill should be thrown out altogether. It can easily be modified in a way to relieve it of its mischievous provision.
“It would most certainly be a great mistake to enact the Fellows railroad bill (H. B. No. 20) in its present form.”
Regional rivalries between Seattle and Tacoma over port dominance and transportation policy have defined the Puget Sound landscape for over a century. The tension described here over grain shipments and rail policy echoes contemporary battles over infrastructure funding and maritime logistics in the Pacific Northwest.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.