The Fire Warden’s War with the Firemen
Seattle’s fire warden defends his authority against a rebellious engine company.
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.
In reply to the informal meeting of Engine Company No. 2, I wish to state that this is the first time that said Company has recognized that the Fire Warden had any control over apparatus of the city of Seattle. From its organization they have been trying to have me removed, and it was a standing item in the papers that there was no head to the Department. Their attention is called to ordinance No. 129, section 3, which reads: 'The Fire Warden shall have the care, custody, and control of all the apparatus to be used by the city of Seattle in the extinguishing of fires.' I did, last Saturday, give orders to Engineer Smith, of No. 2, to keep the engine in the house until he received orders from me. No. 1 has never been out on a drill without my knowledge and consent. I also wish to state that my language used in giving orders was neither vulgar, abusive, nor in any way improper. I did have some words with the First Assistant of said Company after the team was unhitched from the engine, which had nothing to do with the Company.
“The Fire Warden shall have the care, custody, and control of all the apparatus to be used by the city of Seattle in the extinguishing of fires.”
Public safety leadership and the management of municipal apparatus have been points of contention in Seattle for over a century. The tension between political oversight and the autonomy of independent fire companies mirrors the recurring struggle to balance centralized authority against grassroots institutional culture.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.