The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, April 12, 1917, Page 7

L S The roof of the Port commission’s office building at the Bell street publicly owned wharf at Seattle. This roof has been turned over to the park board to be developed as a public playground. In this building one of the most extensive and successful publicly owned systems of grain elevators, cold storage plants and wharves in the country is administered. to sell out the people are now on file with the Port commission. They have disappeared. KEEPING UP FIGHT FOR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP Robert Bridges did not stop fighting after the contract was signed. If he had Seattle probably would not today have the splendid system of publicly owned terminals described in the previous articles of this series. By every means in his power he continu- ed to oppose the leasing of the public- ly built terminals to a private corpora- tion. He spoke to the voters at meet- ings wherever and whenever he got the chance; he printed pamphlets and finally got the use of the columns of one of the smaller newspapers of the city; he argued about it with every- body he talked; he continued to speak against it at Port commission meetings. The Pacific Terminal company, the company the syndicate had organized with the help of the chamber of com- merce to take over the public property for operation, issued $11,000,000 worth of common stock and $2,535,000 of pre- ferred stock, Its only assets were the $5,000,000 the people were to give it for the erection of terminals. It proposed to sell over $13,000,000 worth of stock and thus make vast sums, part to be divided' up among the promoters, on the strength of the people loaning their credit to the proposal to the extent of $5,000,000. Robert Bridges pointed this out. BUILDING COMPANY FORMED TO MILK BIG PROJECT The Pacific Building company was organized by the same syndicate. This company was to get the contracts for building the terminals for which the people were to furnish .the Pacific Terminal company the money. Robert Bridges pointed out that the syndicate intended to malke an additional profit through this subsidiary company. He branded it as a gigantic fraud on the people. All this effort of Robert Bridges to block the plan began to have its effect. In the meantime the Terminal company had to put up a bond.to secure the people for the payment of the rent of the public built terminals. The com- pany had trouble in obtaining this bond. The opposition Commissioner Bridges was gradually building up among the people- spoiled the sale of stock. TFinanciers, formerly ready to lend their aid to the company, backed out. The company could not raise $250,000 needed for the advance pay- ment on the bond required by the lease. Business men of Seattle and members of this syndicate actually went to the 1913 legislature of the state of Wash- ington to get the law creating the Port commission changed so it would not be necessary to put up this bond. This legislature was progressive and refused its aid to any such scheme. VICTORY AT LAST CROWNS GAME FIGHT FOR PEOPLE The months went by. The opposi- tion Robert Bridges was continually building up grew more formidable The company still failed to produce its bond. Then, in December, 1913, 16 months after the whistles celebrated the signing of the lease, the Port com- mission, through Robert Bridges' urg- ing, submitted to the people the matter of repealing the $5,000,000 in bonds previously voted to finance the private syndicate. The commisision also sub- mitted to the people, because Commis- sioner Bridges insisted upon it, the proposition of whether or not the Port commission should build and operate strictly publicly owned utilities, and whether they wanted to vote bonds for that kind of a project instead of the Harbor Island deal. Commissioner Bridges took off his coat and entered the campaign in the interests of public ownership. The people, by a vote of four to one, repealed the bonds previ- ously voted to the private corporation, and by the same majority voted bonds for strictly publicly owned and operat- ed port terminals and facilities. The stubborn Scotchman, one time coal miner of Ayrshire, lately farmer of the White River valley, had won. No whistles blew on the factories and on the ships, but a grateful people recognized the man who had saved them and beaten one of the boldest deals ever framed to raid the public treasury and sell the people into bond- age. Mr. Bridges, once despised, is the most popular man in Seattle today. ‘When the sentiment was the strong- est for thé signing of the lease and Commissioner Bridges alone stood in the way, one of the few friends he had left called on him. “Do you know how heartily you are hated in this community?” he asked. “But I have a few friends left,” said Bridges. “Walk 20 blocks with me through Seattle’s business streets this after- noon and I'll prove you have none,” was the reply. They went out and walked 20 blocks. Not a soul spoke to Robert Bridges, nor to his friend. They didn’t even want to speak to anybody seen with Eridges. Yet Bridges was a pioneer of Seattle and knew almost everybody in town. People turned their heads or took the other side of the street. DARK DAYS ARE PAST: NOW IT IS DIFFERENT Recently that same friend called on Commissioner Bridges. “Let’s take that same walk again,” proposed the commissioner. They did. Every other person not only spoke, but wanted to stop and chat. The people of Seattle have twice re-elected Mr. Bridges to the. Port commission since the Harbor Island deal fell through, the last time with no one offering to run against him. He is now president of the commission and he is still fighting. He is still fighting because the Big Interests that fought public ownership at the start and which control the press are still fighting. They do not want the publicly owned terminals to be a success. “The com- mission is opposed bitterly in every- thing it attempts. Before I was within a thousand miles of Seattle I began to hear that the Seattle public ownership plan was a failure. . “A big graft,” everybody said. “The people are sick of it.” I expected to have to make apologies for the people -of Seattle. I expected to have to show that their projects to “control the terminals did not pan out well—that while perhaps right in principle, they were badly managed and serious mistakes had been made. This was the impression I got before I got to Seattle to see for myself. It - * shows the power of the press. The Seattle newspapers have poisoned the minds of the people of the entire Northwest against public ownership. I talked with people in Tacoma about it, after I had been to Seattle. “Oh yes,” they said. “Seattle is in a nice mess with its Port commission —none of that for us.” “IT'S A FAILURE” SHOUT THE NEWSPAPERS They did not know how or why Seattle’s public terminals had failed. They knew nothing about it. When pinned down they said they had Seen something or other in the papers, both ot Seattle’s and Tacoma’s, to the effect it was a big failure. Such is the power of the press. Some far-sighted people of Tacoma twice proposed a port com- mission and public development of the port by bond issue. Both times the proposition went to a vote and was defeated, as all the papers opposed it. They printed big stories about its “failure” in Seattle. A few people went over to Seattle and found it was a big success there. They couldn't get any publicity in the Tacoma papers for their side. Recently Tacoma voted a big bond issue to buy land to present to the United States government on which to build a big army post. The papers supported that, and it carried. This is not to say the army post will not be a good thing. " The point is that it will not compete with existing monopolies or corporations in Tacoma. It will bring more business for the merchants without taking any business away from anybody. Thus the papers were free to support it. But public ownes- ship of terminal facilities will put somebody out of business in Tacoma, just as it has put somebody out of business in Seattle. It will break the water front monopoly of the railroads and others. It will hit a horde of smaller businesses which make profits under the present private control of terminals. Thus all business men are opposed to it and the papers, which get their support from the business men, are not free to support it. The Tacoma army post will do noth- ing for the consumers, producers and workers. It will help the merchants, the street car lines, the theaters, the cafes and the railroads. Publicly owned port facilities will cheapen food in Tacoma to the consumers and get more money. for the farmers of the vicinity, thus directly benefitting the common people, without being any di- rect benefit, perhaps, to merchants and others directly benefitted by the army post. So Tacoma gets the army post but not the public terminals., The papers are for the one and against the other. COULD SPARE THE SENATE Dogden, N. D., McLean Co. March 18, 1917, Editor Nonpartisan . Leader: March 16 I went to Dogden and list- ened to a speech by Representative Fraser and among other things he spoke about House Bill 44 which was defeated in the senate. Ever since I was a young man I have wondered why the farmers would not go together and build their own flour mills, grind the wheat and sell the flour instead of the wheat. I know the senate is contrary but I think we can get along without these gentlemen just like we could when the League first made a move to get in what officers we have now. . . This is the biggest plague we farmers have. There is al- ways some one trying to steal from us and we wish that stopped. This world is greatly in need of honest people. They are so few. I might have bought shares in a good many places if I knew and was certain that there was no crooked work done .and the enterprise operated by -good intelligent upright people. —ROBERT MELLER. FARMERS WILL BE FAIR (Editorial in Binford (N. D.) Times) ‘We hear and read a great deal these days about a “square deal” for the business man as well as for the farmer. The plea invariably comes from critics of the Nonpartisan League. If the North Dakota business man is not get- ting a square deal let him make his grievance known—and the North Da- kota farmer will help him get it. The farmers have NOT been getting a square deal in the past.’ They are put- ting up a real fight to get it. And when they do get it, it will not be at the expense of the North Dakota busi- ness man. The farmer has no fight with the business man. He is trying to help himself. And there appears to be no good reason why the business man should not co-operate with him in this effort. Second avenue, Seattle, taken by the author from roof of the Washington hotel. SIX