The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-23
FARMERS STILL RESIST.
ADOP TREsOLUTIONs AGAINST pro-
POSED CHANGE IN ROAD LAWS.
Another Meeting Held at Kent YES
terday Addressed by Opponents
of Northumberland of Conn
merce Was Not Represented.

merce Was Not Represented.
Another meeting of the farmers of King
county to discuss the proposed changes
In the road laws, as advocated by the
Chamber of Commerce of Seattle. was
held In Kent yesterday afternoon 1t
proved to be lively affair. but much one
sided as In spite of the fact that MEM
bers of the Chamber of Commerce had
been extended special invitation to be
present at this meeting. not one of them
appeared.
Several Of the speakers at yesterdays
meeting expressed the opinion that the
proposed changes are simply cleverly
worked DISCUSSES aimed to hind the
county to the fact that their actual ef-
feet will be to give to the city of Seattle
the entire control of the fund raised for
the maintenance and repair of roads and
bridges. x
The prime mover IN the agitation.
James Hart. of Christopher. called the
meeting to order J. r. Van De Vanter
was selected as presiding officer and Jim
Hughes as secretary. The chairman
called on Mr.. Hart to state the object OF
the meeting which he did at length. He
reviewed the matter from the session of
the legislature In 1899. when he claims the
same thing was attempted and only de-
lttttu ny a. hidiSlti 1t vas thfs
lately brought UP again in disguised
form, according to the speaker at the
good roads convention held at Tacoma,
where II was introduced In the form of
a resolution by Mr.. elise, chairman OF
the roads committee OF the Seattle
Chamber of Commerce. Mr.. Hart read
a copy OF the resolutions there intro
dueed and stated that had 1t not been for
vigorous objection on his part, aided by
others who saw through its actual char
acter 1t would undoubtedly have been
acopteG. As IL was, 1t was referred to
committee, which resulted in its death
as far as the Tacoma convention was
concerned
The Chamber of Commerce was. he said.
not willing to quit but at once COM
menced the agitation of a similar scheme.
e t. which be had sailed salt, the attention aa,r 81
meeting week ago and which resulted
In calling the present meeting. The MEM
bers-eIect of the legislature had been i'm
vited to be present but were unable to
attend. Thay sent letters pledging them
selves to work for the interests of the
country they were elected to represent
and several of these were -ead by Mr.
Hart
The two points to which Mr.. Hart strong
ly objected were the proposed change
from majority vote of the board to a
unanimous vote a condition necessary
for the expenditure of road funds, and
the proposed change from three to FIVE
n
attic Is to have three.
The first change. according TO the
speaker. would give the city member the
power 70 veto any proposed improve
the country members are prepared to
come to his terms. His opinion was that
the majority rule was right and good
enough for the commissioners. He claim
cd that In their answers TO his commune
cations In the Observation-Disclosures the mem
bers Of the Chamber of Commerce at
.t...{ .is.s&ar
confuse the taxpayer as to what they
were really attempting to get, The city
property, he said Ia assessed from to ~
mills for road purposes. while the county
average of over mills, and IN addition
collected poll tax of H. He particularly
scored the members of the Chamber af
Commerce for claiming that the farmers
did not know what the proposed changes
meant, and then carefully avoiding being
present AT this meeting 10 explain TO the
farmers what they do mean
There is no misrepresentation" said Mr.
Hart They can't deny single state
ment and don't attempt TO, but keep
He considered that the city had stolen
$500 OF the county money and used 1t in
q pretended repair OF the Grant street
Eantic fraud
Mr. Hart said that the Chamber Of
Commerce was full Of splendid hralny
men, who had made the city what Il Isl
but were always willing to rob the county
and Tor his part he would not stand 1t.
What the county wants" Mr. Hart
said lis 10 have the matter Of road build
ing placed under 4 competent head. as far
removed from political Influences as pos
sfhie, and not turned over to a body whose
best efforts are represented 10y the results
in the streets OF the city OF Seattle.
AS 70 the proposed change from three
to Eve members, the city To have three.
IN that case the unanimous rule viii not
be wanted and the majority rule viii be
what the city VIII ask, and the effect 10
the county outside of the city will be tho
same az u the first proposed change is
John woediug was called for. and stated
that he considered Mr HRrts views as
correct The county IN ali raised about
SS5Oa for road construction. the city
about st,Noe and the city received more
benefit from its expenditure than the
county, That whatever the farmer could
save was tn the end spent In the city.
Nr Mooding expressed the opinion that IL
Seattle must be a hog she had better get
into county by herself, ana was loudly
Commissioner smith. OF the North dis
trIct: William Cockr8nc 7 NJ Alverd
+ ]. Howley. Pat Hayes, Charles Taylor
aud John Nelson spoke along similar
lines Air HAYES was IN particular very
bitter about road system which for forty
years had compelled him 10 use a double
team 20 get q small load from hts farm Go
a sci Of resolutions was introduced and
aanpted by unanimous vote, These were
lengthy. huf in effect pledged the farmers
10 oppose the changes proposed by the Sc
attn Chamber OF Commerce and 20 sup
mort some good practical law having Cor
its object the taking OF road construction
out ~ politics and placinS Il under COM
potent head, the adjustment Of the pres
emf system OF poll tax and road super
visors.