The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-14

ings on all the lines covered. On the
basis Of present business this win af-
ford new revenue to our treasury Of at
least $4,000 annually at once. With
ordinary Increase OF business II may
rise to $4,000 or $4,000 the frst year.
We have examined the proposed fran
chiss infinitely and critically and fail
to ana any point where the peoples In
terest Ii not fully protected. The COM
pany must pay Its share Of paving ex-
penses. II must carry school children
for half fare. It must give transfers.
IT must keep $1,000 on deposit with the
city. and the city may repair the tracks
at the company's own cost II It Is neg
ligent It binds itself to settle all diff
ferences with its employees by arbitra-
ton. And in thirty-five years 1t must
remove all its appliances from the
streets without condition. Few street
railway franchises anywhere are as lib
eral to the public as this.
There appear to be but two objections
to II. One Is the opposition Of the adj
vocates of municipal ownership. the
other the demand that twenty-five
tickets be sold for a dollar. AZ to the
first. 1t is obviously aside from the ques-
ton. Municipal ownership has not
worked well in practice, and in some
OF the cities Of Europe where II has been
longest in vogue an agitation IL now In
progress to return to private control.
The proof of the pudding is in the eat
ing. But waive that argument. As
sumo that municipal ownership is de-
sirable. There Is no possible way to
realize II here. We must wait fifteen
years for the first franchise to fall in.
II we attempt to purchase, how are we
to raise several millions to buy and
from one to two millions more to i'm
prove the system? Applied to exist
ing conditions. municipal ownership Is
. mere abstraction. 1t means the main
tenance of present facilities and SER
vice indefinitely. to the distress of our
people and the injury Of our city. That
is the practical fact
The company refuses to sell tickets
because it establishes two rates Of fare.
which have to be tailed with all its
employees and carried through its sys-
tenn Of accounting, and because it holds
that, considering the amount to be paid
out for purchase and betterments, the
investment would not be warranted on
those terms We do not think that a
representative of the people would be
justified in defeating the entire propo-
sition by insisting on this condition.
For we do get an equivalent. The trans
fer privilege is worth more in actual
cash than would be saved on all tickets
purchased. And revenue to the city
Of from $1,000 to $500 a month. where
now It gets nothing and viii not get
anything II no arrangement is made. Is
a material offset.
This il the case as 1t stands. We do
not believe in giving away valuable
privileges without an equivalent. We
hold that the representatives of the
people should make the best bargain
that they can for the people. That.
we are convinced. has been done in
this case. 1t is now a question between
the approval of franchise whose terms
are intrinsically reasonable and whose
life, thirty-flve years, is not
long one as such franchises go. and the
continuance indefinitely of our present
inadequate and in some cases abom-
Unable street railway service. with no
improvements. no tickets, no transfers
and no revenue for half a generation
during the most vigorous growth of the
city. We believe that public opinion.
having become acquainted with the
facts and weighed all the considera-
lions, stands decidedly in favor Of the
approval of the franchise ordinance by
the council.