A Libel Trial Over 'Sweet-Scented Houses' Puts Seattle's Police on Trial
Newspaperman C. H. Lugrin stands accused of criminal libel for printing that gambling and vice flourish under police protection — and the hunt for a jury drags from morning into night.
The trial of Charles H. Lugrin, charged with criminal libel, was called in the superior court yesterday morning at 10 o'clock. At that hour W. H. DeWolfe, Charles H. Frye, Lorenzo E. Chestnut, Andrew Knox, R. J. Graham, John Hazeltine, Frederick H. Coughlan, Carl Mensing and J. W. Dodge were called as jurymen. All the jurymen except J. W. Dodge were present at 10 o'clock. The attorneys for the state and those for the defense — Allen & Powell, Wren & Co., T. Thompson and John Wiley — were in attendance, with the defendant, C. H. Lugrin, and the complaining witness, Chief of Police Bolton Rogers.
Everybody was impatient about the delay. Bailiff Brooks went out and searched high and low for the missing juryman. It was not until 11:30 that he was brought into the court room. In way of apology, the talesman protested that he had to serve as a juror every other day. Bailiff Brooks explained that he had told Mr. Dodge he might serve every day, but that his summons was to be here at 10 o'clock. Court adjourned until 1:30 o'clock p.m.
The charge is that the defendant, C. H. Lugrin, wrote and caused to be published in the Seattle Temple on June 22 an article reading in substance as follows:
"[The business] of the sweet-scented houses continues to flourish. [The] ordinance passed by the last council declaring such places illegal [is ignored]. It would be interesting to know what the [management] of the [police] by the [Howes] ... makes from the gambling [houses], averaged a little over [a fixed sum] per month during the latter [part of] his former term as chief of police. How much does it cost the Clancy crowd to secure protection? Or do they secure it on account of the $1 per capita tax which a certain class of men had to pay every day in the days when Baldy was king before?"
When court reassembled at 1:30 o'clock, W. H. DeWolfe and Andrew Knox were excused on the ground that they were over 60 years of age, John Coughlan was excused because of a very serious illness in his family, and F. Holcomb was excused because he was seriously ill. Judge Glasgow then issued a special venire for twelve jurors, returnable at 4 o'clock. He directed Bailiff Brooks not to summon politicians or any one who was friendly or intimate with Lugrin or Rogers. He told him to summon only good and responsible citizens.
Court then adjourned till 4 o'clock. At that hour the venire was returned with the following talesmen: C. W. Holcomb, E. W. McGinnis, S. Waldo, Jacob Lesser, J. J. Smith, J. S. Graham, Fletcher Coulter, Edgar Bryan, A. J. Young, W. H. Castleman, A. J. Grover and R. Smith.
A. J. Grover, R. Smith, J. S. Graham and S. B. Waldo were put in the jury box to make up the twelve jurors. Ben Hazeltine, W. McGinnis and G. W. Holcomb were excused. R. Smith, J. S. Graham and S. Aronson were excused on peremptory challenge by the state, and J. W. Dodge and Fletcher Coulter by the defense. When the venire was exhausted at 5:40 last evening, the following eleven jurymen were still in the box: R. J. Graham, Charles H. Frye, Lorenzo C. Chestnut, Carl Mensing, Joseph Phillippe, A. J. Grover, W. H. Castleman, A. J. Young, Edgar Bryan, J. J. Smith and Jacob Lesser. A venire for twelve more talesmen was ordered issued, returnable at 9 o'clock this morning, to which time the court adjourned.
“How much does it cost the Clancy crowd to secure protection? Or do they secure it on account of the $1 per capita tax which a certain class of men had to pay every day in the days when Baldy was king before?”
Lugrin's crime was printing what many Seattleites already whispered: that the police priced their protection of brothels and gambling rooms by a per-day per-capita tax. Criminal libel was then a favored tool for silencing editors who named corruption — a preview of the long, unfinished argument over how a city polices vice and who gets to criticize the police without being hauled into court.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.