The Mayor and the Murderer
A scathing editorial questions the ethics of Mayor Ronald defending a local killer while in office.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
It is not popular to praise things 'English' in this country. Yet at the risk of being unpopular, I venture the assertion that in no other civilized country would people calmly witness and tolerate so miserable a spectacle as the one presented to us last week by the notorious 'reformer,' his honor the mayor of Seattle. Last summer one Murphy entered a saloon in the heart of the city, in broad daylight, and in cold blood, without the least provocation, shot and killed the bartender. The police arrested the murderer, who did not deny the bloody deed. The prisoner engaged the mayor of the city to defend him, and truth compels us to record the fact that he has not only succeeded in saving Murphy’s neck, but is now in a fair way of setting his client at liberty. Certainly the law allows a criminal the aid of counsel, but I am not speaking of Lawyer Ronald, I am speaking of Mayor Ronald. It may well be questioned whether a man who is getting $3,000 a year to superintend the protection of life and property in a city has the right to defend a man who has committed a murder in the very heart of that city.
“I am not speaking of Lawyer Ronald, I am speaking of Mayor Ronald.”
Conflicts of interest for elected officials remain a perennial source of Seattle civic tension. The editorial raises a classic question: can a public servant effectively 'superintend' public safety while simultaneously acting as defense counsel for those accused of endangering it?
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.