The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1888-06-19
THE CABLE ROAD FRANCHISE.


When all the facts are taken into
consideration. II appears little less
than outrageous that the city council
should even consider the present ap-
plication for franchise 70 build and
operate cable road on Front street
II there Il . sound argument In favor
Of the granting Of this franchise. il has
yet 10 be brought forward. II there is
an answer TO one of the arguments
against il, IL has yet to be made.
Front street in large sense belongs
10 the people Of the entire city. Those
who are most particularly interested
In II, however, are the owners Of prop
erty which abnts upon il and those
who do business upon it. A large
majority of these are resolntely OPP
posed TO the granting OF the franchise.
The largest property holders have al
ready protested against II. and they
will continue 10 protest until the coun-
Gil respects their wishes or proves its
disregard for them by taking the ae-
ton which they so bitterly oppose.
II should be remembered that the
proposition now before the council Is
TO give away this franchise. without
the city receiving In return any bene-
lit whatsoever. II viii be worth many
thousand dollars to those who receive
1t, aud, II II is granted Mt all, should
not he granted for less than fifty
thousand dollars. That sam could be
obtained for Il without difficulty. and
il Is safe prediction that the value of
the franchise will increase at the rate
Of twenty-five thousand dollars per
year. The council, therefore, contem-
plates giving away something for
which the city could secure a round
price. A proposition to present the
city hall 10 some enterrrising citizen
al San Francisco would not he more
absurd
Strange as II may seem, however.
there is real danger Of the council
granting this franchise. In spite OF
che resolute opposition Of the Front
street property owners, in spite of the
admitted fact that the franchise is
worth thousands OF dollars, a portion,
perhaps majority, of the members
Of the council are prepared to vote for
the franchise. That they have legal
right 70 do this cannot be questioned.
That they have moral right to do SO
may well he doubted. What argu-
ments have been brought to bear upon
them 10 hiring them to the position
which they occupy, the public can on
" infer.
Private interest unquestionahly has
more to do with the course Of many
councilmen than a regard Tor the pub
lie welfare. There are many ways In
wh.ch The interest OF councilman
may he made identical with that of a
cable road company, 1t il sometimes
done by the presentation. OF sale at a
low price. to the councilman OF block
of the company's stock. IL Is some
times promises done by tina, the friend
liz councilman viii be taken care oi
when the company has contracts to let
or lucrative work to he done. Sometimes
il has been done by the direct tender
Of a hrihe. bu, this is seldom. Often IL
10 done hy pscsIsring To the council
men assistance In ioass of their own.
1hrre are . thousand ways OF per
suadinx councilman 10 cast aside the
pahlic interest without throwing an
open parse saaarrly against his cen
science. only the bunglers in iohhery
turn 10 bribery as anything hu, last
resort. II is by remembering these
things that enc can understand the
present attitude Of number Of the
copncilaen.
Here is the situation. then The
Front street property holders protes,
against the granting OF this franchise.
lis Acknowledged that the es;y could
obtain COED round price Tor the fran.
chise. and has NOT the slighies; excuse
for giving II away without 50 ineeh a.
asking for resarn, The people Of The
city are Overwhelmingly opposed to
The franchise And.woal,tseel deeply in
iursd at,hs proposed betrayal OF their
Interests. Yet TIE members Of the
council. whose authority : brief, who
are merely the representatives II the
re,srle aal not thelF sessters, hose