The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 5, 1917, Page 14

genlous. It was one of the most re- markable conspiracies to sell cut the people that I ever heard of, and I have heard of many. It was realized that it would be useless to try to defeat, even with the help of the great newspapers, the bond issue proposed for the peo- ple’s project. The people were in a mood to vote the bonds. The plan was to support the bond issue, get them passed with a great hurrah and then turn the money trom the bonds over to a private syndicate for the erection of wharves and other terminal facili- tles, to be run under private control for 60 years. The newspapers, the chamber of commerce and the business interests generally favored the bonds because they planned to dictate the spending of the money. At the same time a clever publicity scheme was organized, working through the newspapers, to create a public sentiment against operation by the people of the utilities after they were established. Front pages of the newspapers were devoted day after day to accounts of the famous Bush terminals of Greater New York, a private terminal company. The peo- ple of Seattle were told they wanted new terminals, of course, but they wanted them on the Bush plan, under private operation. The Bush terminals in New York were established entirely by private capital, without public aid. That made no difference, however. The impression was created that to have “Bush” terminals in Seattle the reople would have to vote the money for them, build the terminals and “farm’” them out to a private syndi- cate. Shore and tide land promoters, work- ing with the chamber of commerce and business interests offered to sell so- called Harbor Island, in Elliott bay, to the Port district as a site for the “Bush” terminals. The publicity was so clever that the people thought that the real Bush terminal company ef New York was going to handle the project. The use of the name “Bush” became so rank in connection with this proposed selling out of the people that the Bush company wrote to the Port commission protesting against the use of its name in connection with the private terminal scheme at Seattle. MILK THE PUBLIC FOR PRIVATE GRAFT In the face of the sentiment worked up by the business interests and news- papers the Port commission, after it was established under the act of the legislature, over the protest of one member, Robert Bridges submitted a bond issue to the people calling for $5,000,000 to buy land and build terminals on Harbor Island which ‘were to be turned over for operation to a private syndicate to be promoted by the chamber of commerce and private business interests of the city. Even the ballot on which the people voted, stated the proposition was for or against the “Bush terminal project,” although the real Bush terminal company of New. York had nothing to do with it. Be- sides the bonds for this private project, the people voted on $3,000,000 in bonds The Bell street wharf, part of the publicly owned terminal facilities at Seattle. The building on the left is a ware« house for miscellaneous storage and the concrete building on the right is the general office building of the Port commiss sion, which operates the publicly owned properties. ,The roof of this office building is used as a public playground. for general harbor improvement, making $8,000,000 in all. The bonds carried by a big vote. There is no doubt that the issue was : confused by the inclusion of the $3,000,- 000 for general harbor improvement. This was up for a vote at the same time as the $5;000,000 for the private project that was to be financed out of the public purse. The people voted to use their credit to the extent of $5,000,- 000 for a private enterprise, and to the extent of only $3,000,000 for a real public enterprise. Just before the bonds were voted the chamber of commerce entered into negotiations with some New York pro- moters, alleged to be experienced in building and operating terminal facili- ties at seaports, some of whom it was said had been connected with the real Bush project. Without the consent of the Port commission, but by using the attorney of the commission, whose ex- penses to New York were paid by one of the newspapers, an agreement was "made with this private syndicate by the chamber of commerce to operate the publicly built terminals on Harbor Is- land after they were ready. This- agreement in many of its important features was repudiated by the Port commission later. But the majority of the commission, still opposed by Robert Bridges, who was the minority, did enter into and sign a lease with the private syndicate for the operation of the proposed Harbor Island termi- nals. This was in 1912. Two views in the great commission house district of Seattle. The commis- sion houses fought the publicly owned docks and warehouses from the start. The pictures show produce piled on the sidewalks ready for delivery to retailers. Seattle has a score of city blocks devoted exclusively to the commission houses. EIGHT All Washington came to the aid of Seattle in its fight for publicly owned ports, and by statewide referendum killed the Old Gang bill of the 1915 legislature designed to de- feat them. It seemed at that time that public ownership and control of the Seattle terminals was forever defeated by this lease. By a clever plot the Big Interests had used the senti- ment of -the people for a free port to get a bond issue, a debt against the people, but two-thirds of the bond issue was to be used to finance a private corporation. - The Big Interests had put over some- thing big. They had defeated public ownership, but they had succeeded in making the people believe that they were to get relief by financing a private terminal proposition. The voices of those who protested against this iniquity—this monstrous plan to use the credit and resources of the people to finance a private money- making corporation—were drowned by the hurrahs and clamor of the great newspapers, which approved the plan on the dictation of the chamber of commerce and business interests., At the minute the Port commission signed the lease with the syndicate, after a long fight against it made by Com- missioner Robert Bridges, the whistles on a thousand boats in the harbor and a thousand factories on the land, by prearrangement, burst into a prolonged screech of joy. The papers announced that Seattle had “accepted prosperity.” A few months over a year afterwards the people repealed this bond issue for the private enterprise on Harbor Is- land. At the same time they voted $3,300,000 in bonds, in addition to the bonds voted previously, for strictly public ownership and operation of the Port district utilities. This made $6,300,000 for the publicly owned termi- nals that have since been built. The account of the swinging of public sentiment against the chamber of com- merce plan to mortgage the people for a private syndicate is properly the story of Robert Bridges, who, practi- cally single handed, beat the combined power of the chamber of commerce, the railroads, the united business in- terests, the terminal monopoly inter- ests and the great newspapers, and united the people back of a conserva- tive, sane and successful plan of pub- licly owned terminals. I am reserving the story of this remarkable man for the concluding article of this series on the Seattle Port commission. LEGISLATURE TIES THE COMMISSION’S HANDS But the problems of the people did not end when public ownership and operation was definitely decided upon, nor when the sites for the projects were finally obtained despite the hold-up game of the harbor land speculators. A fair deal could not be obtained from the big financiers who buy and sell bonds. The Port’s bonds, secured by all the real estate and other—property in Seattle and King county, were dis- counted by the bond buyers, and on half of the bond issue .the financiers insisted on 5 per cent interest. None of the bonds was sold for a less rate of interest than 41 per cent interest and 4 per cent had been considered a fair rate for general municipal bonds. The Port commission had just made a good start on the construction of the public projects when the interests that were fighting public ownership got the ear of the 1915 legislature. They got this legislature to frame and pass a bill, over the protest of the Port com- mission, intended to throw the build- ing and handling of the publicly owned utilities into Seattle and King county politics, at the same time getting enough politicians on the commission to nullify the work of the three com- missioners who were working for the people. The bill added to the personnel of the Port commission the mayor of Seattle, the county prosecuting attor- ney, the county auditor and county en- gineer. This would add four, making it,a commission of seven, and would create, the Big Interests thought, a majority that would hamper if not stop the carrying out of the harbor plans that the Port commission had under way. The bill also imposed many needless restrictions on the power of the Port commission, such as cheap politicians can frame up at the behest Iof wire pulling special interests. REFERENDUM DEFEATS SHABBY POLITICAL PLOT It was a miserable, dirty trick. The Deople of Seattle got out referendum petitions against this bill and held up its going.into effect. At the next elec- tion the people of the state—not of the Port district, because it was an act of the legislature—repealed the legisla- ture’s bill and left the Port commission to go on as before with its compre= hensive scheme of harbor develop- ment in the interests of the people. The vote at this referendum put the - moral support of the people of the whole state back of the Seattle pub- licly owned terminals. The bill was repealed by the people by a vote of four to one. ‘When the Port commission started With bonds of $6,300,000 already issued, the people are still fighting for additional bonds to build a belt line railway, although three times defeated by Big Business.