The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-04
HO WILL RUN THEN?
Charter Commissioners Discuss
Street Raj roads.
MINORITY REPORT ADOPTED.
Fayorins Municipal Ownership and
Control-Warm Argument for and
Against the Proposition.

minority report. winch Is IN FAVOR OF tue
city owning the railways, was carried by
a vote OF , 10 1, Allen and HamLn beng
absent.
The committee on powers, 10 which the
bill. together with the majority and mi
nOrity reports OF the legislative commit
tee, was referred, for an opinion on the
| right of the commission to submit the
question Of empowering the city 10 own
and operate street car lines, was divided
! Winsor, who reported for the majority,
said:
1T would not be tenable 10 take the
position now that a city cannot take the
control of its electric light and railway
plants" He said he had looked into the
matter and found that thirty-three cities
are conducting their own railroads.
Bausman. who represented the minority
IN the committee, thought that on grounds
OF ineXpediency and on grounds Of law,
it was all wrong and would give rise 10
corruption nconceiyab bic. Those cities which
have control of their railways ne said,
are allowed TO do so by a constitutional
provision. 1t would be called novel
innovation on the part of city should
il attempt to control its railways on the
same plan as its light and water plants.
1t gives opportunities for the most hope
less corruption. and | think the courts
would condemn the experiment. From my
own experience, l can tell definitely what
the true status Of every railway in this
town row is, and their system of accounts,
which is complicated, gives no idea of the
true financial condition of the companies,
except to the initiated. You would not
have such a power in your city council
two weeks before approaches would he
made to members of that body. / don't
believe the court will allow it. | think it
would be very wrong 10 allow the railway
companies TO sell to the city, for the price
would ruin it,.
Winsor stated emphatically that it was
no business of the courts whether ii was
good policy or not THE only question in
vOlved is. has this become one Of the usual
powers TO be exercised by cities Of this
cass?' He did not think the people could
be induced to buy any railway until they
have the power TO operate it, He scout
cd the idea that system OF bookkeeping
could deceive the people. I have good
deal Of faith in the people and think they
should be given the opportunity to vote
on all questions involving large eXpen-
diture Of the public funds"
The question on the motion made the day
before to adopt the majority report of the
legislative committee, which opposed the
btll was argued on. Chairman Preston
expressed the view that the constitution
gave the frst-class cities. such as Seattle.
the power Of self government. He agreed
with the minority report, which faVors
city ownership.
\ Warm Dispute.
motion by Bausman that the matter
be re-referred 10 the committee on powers
was opposed by Andrews. who said, warm
~. II am opposed 10 the motion When
this bin was first presented 10 the COM
mittee on legislation, Mr.. Joslyn express
"a his opinion that ii would he Illegal,
but he has given us no reason why he
thinks so. If we want 10 vote 1t down
let us vote ii down and have no more time
wasted"
In reply 10 this. Bausman said: Il see
no cause for defamation or heat in this
matter l consider this a stupendous ques-
ton, and the greatest question that has
been or will be brought up in this commits
sion Is il not reasonable 10 have "A mat
ter Of such Importance given more than
the basty consideration IL has had"
The question as 10 whether the bill
should be re-referred was lost with a vote
Of S TO 5 Andrews then moved that the
bill and the reports be laid on the table and
the minority report be considered as the
| majority report. Before the question was
put Joslyn rose and said:
There are so many reasons why the
! city should not take the ownership Of the
street railways that I am in a wilderness,
ana know not which reason 10 begin with.
This motion should have been re-reterTed,
for | am almost certain that the commits
sion cannot confer such rights on the city.
II is almost astonishing 70 me 10 think
Of the city going into street railroading. In
the United States / don't know Of sin
gle city that owns its own railroads. The
only instance I know Of is the road across
the Brooklyn bridge which is owned by
New York and Brooklyn"
He referred 70 the street railways OF
| Glasgow. Scotland. as being oftefs drought
up 20 show the success of city ownership.
and said there was no more comparison
between the two than between black ant
white IL ! We're consulting my own pri-
waite interests. l sho0lf he delighted 70
have tho city take all the systems. but
as charter commissioner ! am opposed
70 K heartily Like the human system.
that changes IT'S structure every seven
wears. street railroad IS changed
I throughout every four or five years. and
consequently The original cost IS hut
small proportion Of she true cost. What
would the city have when 70 had bought
the roads, The whole nine roads have
/ been earning Ss4 elo month for more than
three wears past. and the actual running
expenses have been - per cent or the
earnings and for the repairs 81 the road
the owners must 50 down into their peck
cts"
lie asked where the profits az the city
would come in ~ that rate. after they
ha5 bought che roads for 8. 'sa o9o IN city
warrants. bearing interest at or per
cent he spoke OF the cities ot Germany.
which own their railroads and said they
foun5 IL 50 Improbable that they have
given g ur He Thought The true pr'ac.-
NE w.alf D. 10 have the city take a GER
tain rsrceataee Of the gross receipts 81
she railway companies ara allow & or roads
themselves to b- run by The citizens.
"T aa opposed % fre adoption ~ the
minority report" sa{5 Preston. "aut not
far t1a reasons given The impression oe-
tsias BE tais aotv ttat the new Charter
r.r 4