The Whistleblower Who Won
A Seattle man is acquitted of criminal libel for writing a letter warning labor organizers against a corrupt local official.
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.
J. E. Crawford was tried before Judge Humes in the superior court yesterday morning on the charge of criminal libel for writing a letter to Local Assembly 3,413 of the Knights of Labor, warning them against the schemes of Robert Bridges, an assistant street commissioner. The defense admitted publication but urged that it was written for a justifiable purpose—to warn against Bridges as a corrupt and unprincipled politician. Crawford testified that Bridges' 'gang' were notoriously dishonest, a claim corroborated by several witnesses, including Robert Marshal, who testified that Bridges had received money for political purposes on election day. Judge Humes instructed the jury that matter otherwise libelous may be justified by the ends sought. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
“I have no apology to this justice but to those who desire to be among honor and virtue.”
This 1893 court case captures the perennial tension in Seattle politics between grassroots labor organizations and city hall patronage. The 'Knights of Labor'—a central force in local civic advocacy at the time—used their own internal channels to police the corruption of public officials long before digital accountability tools existed.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.