The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-17

pAny, which must remove them forth
with from the streets where It ID now
an intruder. Those who have built resi-
Travel cannot be resumed until some
new party either purchases the aban-
doned property or builds new line.
The cure Is worse than the disease. This
Is why the people do not insist on for
FIXTURES. They do not want a forfeit
ure, which abolishes transportation al
together. but Improvement in service.
Third, as to dates and other facts
called in question. Several Of the sys-
TENS operate under two or more fran
chises having different periods to run.
Mr.. Cotterill chooses the earliest from
which to reckon instead of the average.
The discrepancy Is not material. AS to
the Traction company. his doubt OF the
validity Of that franchise, running forty
five years, is absurd on his own state
ment. There is "only" decision of the
United States court to overcome. The
validity Of that franchise Is universally
acknowledged and has never been called
In question In the courts. It is a poor
case that relies on such improbable
hypothesis.
Fourth, revenue from cars and lights.
It il true that the Traction company
Is to pay I per cent. on earnings. not
"after' ten years. but "for" ten years.
But II its franchise Is not good, as Mr..
Cotterill asserts, 1t will pay nothing.
The revenue from a tax on cars has
not been collected because the COM
panies could not pay 1t. As we have
seen. they have had hard work to pay
running expenses. The other source
of revenue is fanciful. 1t was supposed
originally that street lights could be
furnished from the trolley wire, ana
such a clause was included in one ordi-
nance and for part of one other sys-
tenn. The idea being impracticable, no
attempt was made to enforce 1t. II 1t
could be, the revenue would be only
fraction of what Mr.. Cotterill mentions.
II the companies could not pay 1t, for
these are not profit-making lines, what
then? Forfeiture. says Mr.. Cotterill.
And then the city gets neither revenue
nor service, good or bad.
Fifth. revenue from taxing franchises.
Mr.. Cotterill would raise large sums OF
money this way. From a set OF fran
chises that have thirteen years only to
run and never paid a dividend, and one
other which he says is illegal and in
valid. he would collect heavy revenues!
How much? On that basis. what would
be their assessed value? He omits to
mention the fact that the new fran
chise. II granted. is assessable for tax
alton in exactly the same way. That
Is, the value given to the franchise by
the longer period, on which SO much
stress is placed, will all be taxable
quantity. The tax on gross earnings,
amounting to from $4,000 to $4,000 i'm
mediately. Is in addition to ordinary
taxes. As revenue producer, the pro-
posed ordinance is proved by the argu-
ment to be distinctly advantageous.
Perhaps the most important point Of
all, the transfer system, Mr.. Cotterill
cannot even belittle He says merely
that it will be profitable to the COM
pany. Perhaps SO. We do not know
What we do know is that 1t will be
immensely profitable to the people. That
much he confesses when he points out
the universally of it's use. The truth
is that in a city like Seattle, transfers
will be worth hundreds of dollars daily
to the public. In no other way, neither
by maintaining the present status nor
by forfeiture, can they be obtained.
They are an incidental benefit of a
single management.
We have covered all the objections
raised, assuming them to have been
stated in a spirit Of fairness. In our
opinion the considerations of revenue,
transfers and improved service alone
warrant and require the granting
of this franchise. In addition to
that there is the matter OF ex-
tensions. At present there are out
lying sections Of the city poorly served
or not served at all. Their demands
will increase with our growth. and can
be answered only by the building of new
lines. For these some sort Of franchise
must be granted; and no person has
yet proposed or will propose to invest
capital on a fifteen years franchise.
Mr.. Cotterill is simply carried away
by the dream Of municipal ownership.
and everything must bend to that
theory. He complains that city author
tiles will not enforce ordinances or as
sess property, and then declares that