The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1922-12-16
STREET CAR
BONDHOLDERS
Defer ACTION
No Move Against
Scent Fare if 1t
Should Prove to
Be Successful

Dy NODcTt %. DcIIuan0
Passage OF an ordinance re
storing the Scent fare on the
municipal street car Iines--as -
sured by Fridays action Of TIE
finance and utilities committees
Of the city council. sitting In
joint session - Will not be op
posed by the holders Of the SIS.
100000 worth Of bonds with
which the city paid for the sys-
tenn.
This was learned on the highest
authority Saturday morning.
While A. w. Leonard. president ce
the Puget Sound Power 4 Light Co..
and chief representative in Seattle ol
the Stone A Webster interests. ~
fused TO issue any statement on the
matter. II can be stated definitely
cent fare is contemplated by ~
bondhoiders AZ this time. and that
no action viii be taken unless the ~
duced far. results in so great fan
ing off OF revenues that the city a.
faults In It's bond payments.
The bondhoiders' attituds. IN briek
IL simply this;
They are entirely willing to pesmio
the city 10 give the scent fnre q
thoro trial and win not interfere II
any way unless their own lnteeeGto
are menaced by a default oe bonA
payments. A. matter Of fnG1, thoy
are actually In favor Of = E-oon0
fare--as long AZ Il doesn't intoGc1gU
with the bond payments.
In this respect. they take the poo1e
ton that--always provided II can ~
made to pay---the scent fare vou11
be helpful 10 their interests = ~
would tend TO make the people jeau
dissatisfied with the contract undof
which the system was sold e IL
city.
As the matters stand now. u
bondholders feel that they have ~
ground for legal action. There q -.
default now-and until (and unleno1
there In a default there Is nothins
for them 10 do. Their position 4 one
OF watchful waiting.
Should the scent fare result d =
default. however. Il seems Assured
that steps win immediately be tnIcn
In an effort to force the city to -
for the bonds out OF the general ~
fund.
This. according to officials or IN
Puget Sound Co. can be done In apfto
OF the recent decision OF the United
States circuit court Of appeals IN the
bondholders' suit against the city
under which decision II Is held THAI
the general fund cannot be toucho1
for bond payments or for malntor
nance.
Tho oondholders arc now pro-
pairing TO file \ petition for : -
hearing before the court Of -
peais and n this Is denied ~ "a
United states supreme court
viii be asked for writ Of cer-
mountaineering that they would
attempt to prove they he'd m.
ficient ground to justify carry
ing the case before the hiKhont
tribunal In the country.
Even II these efforts should faih
the bondholders believe that theY
would still have recourse to legal
action in case of default. as they
point out that the appellate court
recognized the ruling of the supreme
court that the ordinance and con-
tract under which the city purchaso
the lines are valid and that Il ~
versed the decision OF Judge C1ish.
man without prejudice to the right oc
the company II any breach of Con-
tract were TO occur In the future.
In other words. according to the
Interpretation. the ap-
pellate courts decision said nothing
more In effect than that the com.
plainants were ''hollering before they
were hurt"
Summed up. the attitude Of the !.
bondholders may be said to Be-
this:
$50 far n the Scent farU
ordinance Is concerned. II its of-
feet Is 10 reduce the gross income
to such an extent that the city
would not have enough money to
put into the fund the amoun. Of
gross revenues pledged to the
fund. the city becomes liable. The
ordinance Is the city's gamble
Turn to Last Page. Column 3