The Fight Against the 'Two-Percent Shylocks'
A fierce 1878 constitutional debate in Washington Territory pits anti-monopoly reformers against banking interests.
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 the Constitutional Convention, an article was introduced by Mr. Hannah and adopted by a vote of 8 to 7, as follows: 'The Legislature shall not have the power to incorporate any bank or banking company or monied institution whatever, nor shall any bank company or institution exist in the State, with the privilege of making, issuing or putting in circulation any bill, check, certificate, promissory note or other paper, or the paper of any bank, company or person to circulate as money.' Upon this the Intelligencer vituperates as follows: 'It is not to be wondered at that one might be found servile enough to introduce such a cut-throat clause in the interest of a few two per cent. Shylocks, who have already got this Territory flat on its back, and are thirsting to drain the last drop of its blood and then die themselves on the inanimate corpse of their victim. But the wonder is that eight out of fifteen intelligent men would vote to adopt such a short-sighted and unreasonable provision as it seems they did.' Our wonder is, that seven out of fifteen intelligent men should be so far behind the intelligence of the age, or so false to the rights of the people, as to vote against prohibiting the Legislature from conferring special privileges upon accumulated wealth.
“It is not to be wondered at that one might be found servile enough to introduce such a cut-throat clause in the interest of a few two per cent. Shylocks.”
The 1878 debate over the power of banking institutions and the influence of 'Shylocks' mirrors modern anxieties about the influence of financial capital and corporate lobbyists on public policy in Seattle. The tension between those who see financial regulation as essential to prevent economic exploitation and those who view it as a hindrance to progress remains a staple of Washington politics.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.