The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-13
Judge Burke Explains Why 0rdi-
nance Was Passed.
c'ry's ATTITUDE is DEFINED.
Under Present Conditions Disputed
Questions Between the City and
the Corporation May BE Brought
squarely Before Courts for Set
tIement-The Reasons why Coun-
! Gilman Parry was Committed.

an interview latt 0lxHts that oil ~
tempt has been made In certain Interest,"
ed quarters to give a false coloring to
the action of the city council In passing
an ordinance last Friday night. clearly
defining the attitude of the city council
toward the Seattle Gas and Electric Com
pany. A stranger might suppose from
some OF the statements made In regard
to this matter that the city council were
inveiglcd into passing, and the mayor
into signing. an ordinance giving away
all the rights Of the city In its contro-
versy with the gas company. All such
statements are utterly groundless. The
plain facts OF the case are these:
Some four months ago the city OF
Seattle took the position that the fran
chiss OF the Seattle Gas and Electric
Company (Which, for short, l will call
the gas company had expired and that
the company had no right to lay or ex-
tend It's mains in any street OF the city
The manager OF the gas company then
called upon me for counsel. talked
with the different members OF the city
council on the situation. and they gen.
orally took the position that, in view OF
the interests involved on both sides, the
only wav left open, X the gas company
stood upon what It claimed to be us
rights under its franchise, was to test
the question In the courts, and that the
city was ready and willing to take al
necessary steps 10 makc u CiSdu-So& -
sue with the gas company and leave IL
to the courts to decide between them
''Mr. Samuel Hill. who is very largely
interested in the gas company. happened
at the time to be In Europe, and ex-
pressed Z desire to have the matter de-
iayed until he could return, so that l
might have conference with nim IA
the meantime the city. through the board
OF public works, took a definite stand
upon the question by notifying the gas
company that, In the opinion OF the city,
its franchise had expired and that II
would not be permitted to lay or extend
any mains In any part of the city. and
this policy has been steadily adhered 10
nv the city ever since. l think Mr..
Humphrev must be misquoted when he
Is reported to have said that ] promised
him not TO take any steps In this gas
matter without first notifying him.
never made any such promise.
rrvth COncerning the Ordinance.
Gas II was apparent from the attitude 81
the council that there could be no settle
mont Of the controversy between the par
ties short OF a trial OF their rights In
court. we prepared In my Office briet
ord!nance embodying In II the attitude OF
the city towards the gas company, as
taken and maintained by the board OF
public works for months past. and this
r. the ordinance complained Of Mr. Parry
has candidiy and honestly stated the cir
cumstances connected with his introduce
zion Of this ordinance. ! simply went to
him because he was the ranking member
of the corporation committee. Here Is
the ordinance. and anyone can see by
reading II how utterly groundless are the
complaints against II:
- BE II Ordained by the City etc. =
That ordinance No. 234 amending ordf-
nance No. 80 (being the ordinances grant
ing the franchise under which the gas
company Is operating) expired by limita-
tlon OF time and by reason thereof y no
longer OF any force, power or validity
whatever. and has ceased to be binding
upon the city of Seattle, and no longer
confers any right or franchise whatever
upon any person, company or corporation
whatsoever. That the board OF public
works of the city OF Seattle be and they
hereby are authorized. empowered and di-
rected 10 prevent the Seattle Gas and
Electric Company. now claiming TO be the
owner OF the franchises originally grant
cd by said ordinance and said amends
tory ordinance. from laying down any gas
mains In extension OF any mains hereto
fore laid down and now n use IN the
OF said ordinance No. -. or. said amenda-
tory ordinance No ~; for the reason that
the right use PRIVILEGE and franchise as
by Limitation Of time, and neither OF said
ordinances any longer confers upon any
person. company OF corporation any risht.
ever
Leaving out the merely formal parts.
this II all there II OF that ordinance. AZ
anyone may see. u does nothing more
than clearly TO define the attitude Of the
city towards the gas company, and as
thus defined IL is the exact position main
tanned by the city towards the gas COM
pany for four months past.
The City's Position.
Now there Is not member OF the city
government that will deny that this II
the position that has all along been taken
and maintained by the city. In fact, the
city officials would not dare to take any
other position unless they were ready 90
cuncede that the gas company's claim was
right and their contention wrong. This
ordinance presents cican-cut issue. and
that Issue Is this
"The city on It's part contends that the
gas company's franchise has expired ana
tho gas company has no right 70 do bust
meas In this city. The gas company on
the other hand, will contend that its
franchise has not expired and that u has
a right. under the ordinances granting
the franchise, To do business in this city
Tho whole question can thus be presented
90 the court upon the pleadings The
city, 10 honestly advised, should welcome
issue and abide the result The question
u now pending before the United States
circuit court. II either party shah ~
dissatisfied with the Judgment thar viii
ne rendered there. the right 81 appeal 10