The County’s Cold Shoulder: Seattle Bleeds for Indigent Sick
In April 1877, the City of Seattle faced a financial crisis as King County refused to pay medical bills for indigent patients, leaving local taxpayers to foot the bill for care that should have been shared.
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.
Our City Fathers and County Supervisors appear to have agreed upon a general disagreement between them in the matter of footing the bills for the recent small-pox patients. We think the county should shoulder the burden, and pay all the bills cheerfully. In fact, we can see upon what ground they claim to be exempt from it, as there is really no distinction to be made between the small-pox patients in question, and the indigent sick, the maintenance of whom always falls upon the county, in every case.
The refusal of the county to accept these bills cannot be esteemed anything short of a piece of downright injustice, as the city is virtually under no more obligation to meet these bills than it would be to pay for the maintenance of a given number of other indigent sick persons for the same period of time. The small-pox patients were virtually paupers, as much so, in fact, as any who are at present in the county hospital, and the county acknowledges itself to be directly responsible for the support of all such persons.
In consideration of this, it receives something like $12,000 in city licenses, which under other circumstances would belong to the city. With this arrangement reversed, the city could well afford to bear the burden of maintaining its indigent sick. But as it is, we should like to know upon what principles of justice and right the county can profess to saddle the bill of something like $1,500 upon our city government.
We cannot believe that our County Commissioners will determine upon adopting this course as it would be so directly adverse to every principle of equity. It is already laboring under a heavy burden of debt, under the most adverse circumstances, and certainly none can wish to add the straw that would break the camel's back. Our County Commissioners will undoubtedly regard the matter in this light, and as honorable gentlemen and citizens consider carefully the equitable claim of our embarrassed city government.
In the care of these patients no small amount of credit is due to our Health Officer, as he has served the public faithfully in the matter throughout, without any compensation. Even at the most critical time during the prevalence of the pestilence among us, just at the time when the dampening effect of the arbitrary decision touching the validity of our city charter was being felt the most, and when the persons engaged to take care of the small-pox patients had refused to render further service unless money was forth-coming, he immediately took the money from his own pocket and paid them. Had this not been done it is not easy to predict what the result would have been.
This 1877 dispute over who pays for the sick highlights a perennial tension in local governance: the friction between city and county jurisdictions regarding social safety nets. It mirrors modern debates where municipalities struggle with unfunded mandates or shared responsibilities for public health crises, forcing local leaders to choose between fiscal solvency and civic duty.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.