The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1919-08-28
The Ferry

The Ferry
~EVERAL weeks ago there
- was started in the coll
umns of the Courier-Reporter a
controversy over who was or was
not responsible for the present
development on the Highlands.
Our advice at that time was to
cut out the wrangling over past
performances and get busy with
plans for future development.
Upon our return to the editor
ial desk we find that Commits
sioner R. E. Pratt, in a published
communication, opens the way
for a controversy as to who was
or was not responsible for the
granting to James Gavin a five
year ferry franchise. The public
is not interested as to how or by
whom the franchise came. but in
good service under the franchise.
So our advice now is the same as
before, cut out the wrangling
over who was responsible for the
franchise, but get busy for bet
ter ferry service if the present
service is not satisfactory.
In his communication Mr..
Pratt says&hat M. M. Moulton,
attorney for Mr.. Gavin, made
use of subtle propaganda, and
intimates that something, we
know not what, was done that
was not exactly square and above
board. As nearly as we can get
at the facts, if anything other
than the merits of the case, was
responsible for the granting OF
the five-year franchise, it was q
family quarrel within the county
board and not the Subtle pro
paganda" of Mr.. Gavin's attor.
ney, or anyone, else. When the
ferry question first came before
the board, the Courier Reporter
upon authority of Mr.. Pratt, re
ported that Mr.. Gavin's applica.
ton had been tabled. We were
Immediately taken to task by
Mr.. Gavin who said that the ap
iplication was not tabled, but
granted, with Commissioner
Bash and French voting for it
and Commissioner Pratt oppos
ing. When the official proceed
ihgs of the board reached Us
they confirmed the statement Of
Mr.. Pratt and reported the fran
chise as tabled. The day follow
ing the arrival Of the officia
proceedings Chairman Basil
called at this Office and informed
us that the official proceedings
were in error. That the fran
chise application had not beer
4 tabled but the franchise hae
been granted by his and Com
missioner French's vote and that
at the next meeting Of the board
The would have the minutes cor
rected. Instead of this being
done Mr.. Gavin, at the sugges
ton Of the then prosecuting at
torney, made an entirely new
application and the franchise
was granted with the commits
sioners voting as before. 1t ]:
evident from this that no subtle
propaganda was necessary. Two
of the commissioners favored
the franchise from the first
and their votes were sufficient.
AS we have said, these famil.
affairs Of the official board are o
little or no interest to the publi
Il at this time land we review then
now only in spirit Of fairnes
to Mr.. Moulton. We fail to Sc
wherein he, in presenting tn
claims of his client, did any
thing unethical, unprofe ssiona
or in any particular betraye
the interests of his county o
was disloyal to his community
AS a matter of fact, we fail t
fsee wherein Mr.. Gavin needle
the services of an attorney whe
"a majority Of the board OF com
| missioners was on his side fror
the beginning.
We believe Mr.. Pratt has tax
| en- a sound position in sayin
/ that the better course woul
Il l.,,-j 100, n hermit. Mr.. Gavi