Padding the Patrol
A skeptical editorial questions the necessity of a bloated police force in an orderly town.
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 city of Seattle has now a regularly organized and uniformed police of six members, maintained at a monthly expense of $500. This is a pretty big force to maintain for the most orderly town on the Pacific Coast. It is too big, and the city cannot afford it. Two members of the force are purely ornamental. One of them has been pacing Fourth, Fifth and Sixth streets for a year past at an expense of $1000 without rendering one single apparent service. Another district has been created in the northern part of town where not one solitary offense calling for the intervention of a policeman has occurred. It looks as if it was intended to pension certain individuals, giving them easy billets and snug incomes for nothing. The city has more need for its money to grade streets, build engine houses, and provide lights at night.
“It looks as if it was intended to pension certain individuals, giving them easy billets and snug incomes—for nothing.”
Debates over police budgets, staffing levels, and the perceived effectiveness of patrol beats remain central to Seattle municipal politics. The 1883 complaint about 'ornamental' officers echoes modern calls for police reform and resource reallocation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.