The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-10-19
MR. SMITH REPLIES.
He Denies Judge Burke's
Charges Against the 0. L Co.
THE "ExclusivE" FRANCHISE.
Another Contribution to the 1sYminal
ContFoveFsy-Great Northern
at Wenatehss.

The interview with Judge Thomas
Burke, counsel OF the Great Northern rail-
road, on Their terminal controversy pub
lished IN Mondays Posr-IsTEIIigE.cEa,
caused G. ]. Smith, general manager Of the
Oregon Improvements Company. TO make
the following reply TO PosT-isTELLr-
sEscKR reporter yesterday:
The judge devoses tbs most OF his renly 20 tia
Frightening up OF ths dark age. which. while
interesting a. an account Of The history tina; Is
made, does not seem % bring rs say nearer 20
terminal plans viii refer briefly 70 sorne OF
the historical incidents-
The Oregon Improvement Conpany's extern
sion did not receive q subsidy 70 the extent OF
10000 or $500 or any other sum, the Judge
would have people infer. II did have sum
much smaller than the one mentioned advanced
20 IT, which has since been repaid with per
cent interest
Ia regard % the PUGET Sound Shore road. I
have scarcely ever read a historical statement
consisting Of 30 much rurnor ard such q mix
ture OF names. The fudge has evidertly taken
the name Of the Oregon Improvement Company
and attached IL 70 every tnciden. that Re could
nee 70 appeal 70 popular prejudice. The Oregon
Improvement Company never owned dollars
interest in the Orphan road" directly or fndi-
rectiy, and, so far from being responsible for IL
or Its failures. u was the only company
o. individual 20 come forward and advance
the ulesns 10 hire equipment aud operate tbs
road. The Oregon and TranscoutineDtal Com
psny built and owned the road, and the action
OF the Improvement Company was taken when
that company either would not or could not
fad the necessary funds, aad was continued
Until the Pnget Sound shore road perfected SIS
own organization and ASSUMED control It's &C.
ton in 40 operating the road was taken directly
In the iutsres. OF Seattle. and with q certainty
OF loss.
The Judge states the water block between
Main and Washington streets was donated to
the improvement Company. A. we have deeds
and vouchers in the Office showing over $4,000
was paid for 10 by the company, / an forced
into the belief that the judge meant some other
block or possibly sorne other company. The
judge IL a high authority. but whore gift chases
sift. and franchise follows franchise, IS they
must have done through the IN igss mind In
late years. slight error Is excIsal5is. These
matters, however, are the dus. thrown IN the
air to obscure the questions more interesting to
the public and which am sorry TO see. the
Judge either touches upon very lightly or
ignores entirely Ia his interviews.
IIe denies with feeling that the grants en- Rail-
rosd avenue are exclusive, and sets up the Ian
gusge o. the ordinances:
That hereafter any other railway company
constructing = standard gauze railway tn seat
tie. On receiving franchise from this ety. can
have the right 10 the common use IL said tracks
in the Aforesaid rlght-of-wsy FOR the running OF
lis traina thereon, uyon the payment To the said
Eeastls * Montana Railway Company, Its sue
csssors and assigns. OF such monthly or annual
rental and compensation may Re Just and
eauitabs. aud suoject 70 such reasonable rules
aud regulations az 1sa. he coasfstent NTH he prior
sfck's Of said Seattle & Montana RAILWAY Conn
bans, IFS saceessor~ and assigns, and such as
shgH noi interfere tpih fratae the dispatch and
frras0tion 81 the business Of TIE said SEATTLE &
Gsatasd Rdale1y CombdRy
And IN case said railway eorrpsuv can not
agree with said Seattle & Montana Railway Com
rsnF. lts successors or assigns, upon the terms
Gad compensation to he paid for the use OF saii
tracks "a Aforesaid, any controversy resnectfug
the smount u be paid 20 said Seattle 4 Mon
fAna Hallway Company. its successors or as
signs, Tor the privileges OF the of ssid tracks
and the conditions, terms sud regulation oi
such nae. such controversy shall le submitted
70 arbitration according tn the isws in force in
the state OF Washington, AMI such submission
shsii have tho same force and binding effect
upon ths parties hereto ~ shall be PROVIDED by
such laws In other cases Of arbitration.
Mark the words In italics: "Consistent with
the prior rights Of the Seattle 4 Montana Rail-
way Company" and subject TO rules "st'ch az
sida mot interfere feth o. srapee N, d;,pcies and
Transaction of the b,sfpess OF the seattle & Mon.
tans Railway Company" What COMPANY could
ever hope to use the Seattle & Montana tracks
IN the most limited way without interfering
with or impeding tho dispatch OF bushes. 20
ZONE exteutf This means. If IL means AWNING.
that III the Seattle & Montana Railway Comuany
desires TO graft track age TO another COMPANY.
aud gets the price II demands. II will do 30:
otherwise It's business will he in esGered with or
impeded by such use.
wss wrong in calling the grants exclusive
They are worse than exclusive The PEG
lie now are !nggled into the belief that
the franchise has some restrictions. Every
good LAWYER and experienced railroad man
knows In reality there are none
We come now 90 the most interesting tonic I'm
the discussion In my former interview ! asked
the judge 10 cndeavcr 10 rectify the errors made
III granting those franchises on Railroad ave-
rue. and eonfer great henefit on the city nv
bringing his company into some terminal Az
rangement search in vain through the
.udge'srepiy for any expression OF the attitude
of bis company. docs saw that IL will build
depot OF its own II 1; can obtain the nrarer;y
ehesriy enough; but the vital question. the
matter IN which every one is interested. tho
only question a. issue-ths formation of a ter
,niuai company or the immigration OF same rlan
that would provide common and equal rights
Ia all railroads now here or 20 come--ae passed
b. IN silence
Could anything he more charac.e-is.fe- 4
column snd a halt headed Terminal Fight"
aud not even a mention OF ste subject
-fhfr~nn -.