The Mayor Who Bought His Seat with Lottery Money
In Seattle’s first hotly contested municipal election of 1876, the newspaper publisher who ran for mayor lost to Dr. Weed—not because he lacked support from mechanics and laborers, but because his opponent mobilized the city’s notorious lottery gamblers.
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.
The election on Monday was the most hotly contested of any ever held in this town, and the vote polled was nearly double that polled at any previous city election. The main theme was for or against a general system of public improvements, popularly expressed as a fight between the 'old settlers' and the 'new comers;' which was not literally the case, but may be more definitely stated as a contest between enterprise and conservatism; between the old civilization and the new—those who desire to build up a city by means of a liberal expenditure in public improvements, and those who want to enjoy all the benefits arising from the growth of the town without being called upon to bear any portion of the expenses necessary to promote such growth.
The candidates for Mayor respectively represented these two elements. When the editor of this paper was put in the field as the candidate of the progressives, it was generally understood that Hon. A. A. Denny would be the candidate of the obstructionists. This would have presented the issue fairly, as they are both representative men, and Mr. Denny a man of high social position, sterling integrity and unblemished reputation. We should regard it as an honor to be beaten by such a man, as we would have the assurance that he would scorn any disreputable combinations or dishonorable devices to promote his own election. Such a contest would have been open, manly and attended by no personal ill-feeling.
But Mr. Denny did not choose to take the hazard of defeat upon the issue presented, and a candidate was selected on the score of availability, with no pronounced opinions upon any subject, and without Mr. Denny’s scruples in regard to the means to be employed for his election. Dr. Weed, while professing to be with us in sentiment, gladly accepted the nomination upon conditions which bound him in honor to carry out the adverse policy. Not only this, but he availed himself of elements of opposition created by our editorial expressions against lottery gambling which he warmly endorsed and approved at the time they were uttered, and this disingenuous and disreputable device and the combinations formed with the lottery gamblers turned the scale in his favor; so that he is not only committed to the policy of the obstructionists, but bound in honor to defend the lottery gamblers, for to them he owes his election.
A more gallant fight was never made in a municipal election. We have abundant reason to be proud of the result; of the warmth and earnestness with which we were supported, and of our record. Out of 579 votes, by far the largest ever polled in this city, we were beaten by 17, and that majority owing entirely to our public denunciation of the most nefarious and demoralizing system of gambling ever attempted or tolerated in any civilized community.
We cheerfully surrender to Dr. Weed the honors of Mayor held by the grace of the lottery gamblers. We want no office which cannot be procured without concessions to lawlessness and vice, and we would not suppress one manly impulse or expression to be President of the United States.
We have the satisfaction of knowing that we had the earnest support of a large majority of the mechanics, laborers and small property holders of the town, and that all the large land-holders, bankers and money lenders combined against us, and with all the power that their wealth could command, they could not beat us without the aid of the lottery gamblers. Our victory is complete without the empty honors of the Mayoralty.
This 1876 account reveals Seattle’s early struggle between civic development funded by taxes and the resistance of established elites who wanted growth without cost. The newspaper’s claim that 'lottery gamblers' swung the election highlights how informal economies and vice operations have long influenced local politics, a dynamic that echoes in modern debates over zoning, development fees, and the influence of special interests on municipal governance.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.