Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1912-11-15
COUNCIL REFUSES
RIGHT TO VOTE ON !
PENDING FRANCHISE
Unanimously Tables Resolution
Granting 0lympians Suffrage
on Electric Light Question.
WILL PROBE CONDITIONS.
Committee Of Council, Commercial
Body and Citizens to Investi-
gate Local Situation.


erendum vote. Az representatives.
Of that electorate the councilmen
usurped the power placed in their
hands and propose to conduct the
city government In an arbitrary
manner. They have taken the po-
sition that this electorate II not
sufficiently educated to act wisely.
Regardless Of the merits or demer-
its Of the matter to be voted upon,
they have refused the electorate the
privilege granted by constitutional
amendment. II 1t not time for this
electorate to force its "representa-
tives" to do Its Wilt
Absolutely refusing to grant tbs
voters of Olympia an opportunity to
indicate, in the general city election
December 3, whether or not they
cared to grant an electric. light fran.
chise to a competing company. the
Olympia council Wednesday evening
dillydallied around for q while and
then unanimously tabled q resolution
calling for such an election, in which
offer was made by those seeking the
franchise to bear all the extra expense
entailed.
In substitution therefor and appar
emily in desire to gain time through
delay. the council. on motion of Coun-
Gilman Funk. voted to appoint . COM
mittee to investigate the general light
ing conditions in Olympia to determine
the reasonableness of the present rates
Of the Olympia Light 1 Power COM
pany, to determine that company's
ability to increase its supply Of power
and to make any recommendation It
desires.
Councilman Taylor, Funk end,
Leupke were appointed on that com.
mittee. three members Of the Chamber
of Commerce are authorized to work
with them, while in addition Mayor
Bridgeford appointed Messrs. C. w
Stentz. Brewer, Weston and r. r.
Stress and was authorised to add other
large users Of power to an advisory
committee.
The councilmen apparently failed
to realize that the work this committee
is authorized to do could be carried on
just a. we'll II the council granted the
people an opportunity to express their
views on the question. They preferred,
apparently, to refuse the people the
right Of suffrage on the proposition
and to deprive the people Of action
upon the franchise after the results of
the Investigation had been made
public.
In making the motion to table this
resolution proposing . referendum.
Funk stated he believed
the council was not yet ready to put
the question up to the electorate. ad-
ding that they would not be suflcient-
~ informed to act wisely. Previously.
in making the motion for the appoint
ment of the investigating committee.
he stated that there was difference of
opinion as to the present company's
ability to meet the city's growing
needs. that the city was demanding
more power and that in view of this
difference he believed the whole ques-
tion should be investigated.
In the resolution w. B. Foshay, who
IL applying for . competing franchise.
offered to bear the extra expense en-
tailed and to deposit with the city
clerk Immediately the sum that oficial
estimated would cover the cost. He
also offered to publish In the local
the full text Of the ordi-
nance and to circulate to every voter
In the city copy Of the proposed or
dinance, to acQuaint them with all its
details. This he offered to do at his
own expense.
Following . conference between Mr..
Foshay. Mr.. Hardy. his attorney. the
members Of the council franchise COM
mittee and the Chamber Of Commerce
committee. Mr.. Foshay submitted q
new ordinance to the council. embody.
ing 30 far as possible. he stated, the
suggesti0nsmade at that conference.
This ordinance was referred to the
franchise cnmuitta.