Same Streets
← All stories

The Saloon Wars: How Seattle’s Council Killed the Fight to Ban Bars from Residential Streets

In a heated March 1904 council meeting, reformers fought to keep saloons off streets where wives and children walked. The measure failed, revealing deep corruption and the powerful grip of liquor interests on city government.

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.

Proposed Ordinance to Limit Saloon Districts Defeated by the Council.

The proposed ordinance fixing the saloon limits of the city, brought up and debated before the city council last night, was defeated. Councilman Hill opened the fight by moving that the ordinance be taken from the table. The motion carried. There was a roar in opposition to the measure. Mr. Ardle endorsed this amendment, but demanded that one street be kept free from saloon influence, where the wives and children of the city can promenade without being compelled to pass in front of a saloon every few blocks.

Councilman Hill argued that if this ordinance went into effect, property on Madison Avenue would be increased in value. Councilman Diller became taunt and demanded to know what would become of First Avenue if all saloons were on that street. He said: "Why, would all be ruined, and the property worthless."

Attorney White was present to represent the Butler Hotel, and stated his objections to the ordinance. Mr. Navin next took the floor and stated that no man comes out of the Diller drunk. Nor has he asserted that men and women come out of the Butler drunk. He exclaimed: "It is these gilded palaces of sin that are doing the harm. Many good girls will not enter the open saloon, but can be enticed into these 'palaces.'"

Navin stated that a saloon man appeared to him two days ago and told him the White & Hill council could be bought with a "lot of whiskey." A motion was made to put the bill on its final reading; motion carried by a vote of 13 to 1. Hill made an amendment to the ordinance was referred to committee to make the necessary changes, for a vote of 10 to 2.

When the committee was ready to report, a motion was made by Councilman Casselman to indefinitely postpone action on this measure; motion carried by a vote of 13 to 1. Realizing that the bill was lost, a motion was made to grant Hamm & Schmitz, Thayer Law, L.E. Butler, J.J. Madison, Beck Frank Owen, and Matthew Loquas liquor licenses; motion passed by a vote of 13 to 1. Hill voting no.

Councilman Demog wanted to know how they managed them in Tacoma, where they had only half the force which Seattle maintains. The chief stated that they were compelled to form a vigilance committee.

Then · 1899127 years apartNow · 2026

This 1904 battle over zoning and land use mirrors modern Seattle debates about mixed-use development and the concentration of alcohol sales near schools and residential areas. Just as councilmen in 1904 prioritized property values and liquor industry connections over community safety, today’s city planners still grapple with balancing commercial interests against the quality of life for residents in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods.

The original page

The Seattle Star (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1899-03-14. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Star (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, MAR 14, 1899, Page 4
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60250, -122.33300 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗