Same Streets
← All stories

The $250 Purse Nobody Could Spend

Walla Walla saloonkeepers pooled money to buy a friendly license ordinance. Then the councilman they thought was theirs voted the wrong way.

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.

There seems to be a feeling of disquietude as well as wrath among the liquor dealers, owing to the action of Councilman Bowles when the question of license came up at the last meeting of the board. The saloon men claim that Mr. Bowles was pledged for low license, and on that understanding they turned in and spent money for his election. Mr. Bowles claims that he did not commit himself farther than to say that he favored low license, and would do what was right. He believes in low license, but thinks $300 a proper figure, and, when the amended ordinance with the license fixed at $500 was put to vote, he cast his ballot in the negative. In consequence, Bowles is the mark of many opprobrious epithets. This is not all that makes matters inharmonious. To carry their point, the liquor men raised a purse of $250 to be presented to the councilman who engineered the low-license ordinance through the board. A well-known saloon man now has this money, but knows not what to do with it, as the favorable ordinance wasn't passed. Another effort will be made to carry the council at the meeting tomorrow evening, and a councilman has been selected to see the thing through, but a further complication arises over the statement of an ex-city official, who swears that should the designated municipal tool accept the money, he will expose the whole business. Thus it is to be seen that everything is not lovely along the classic banks of Mill creek, and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in consequence.

“A well-known saloon man now has this money, but knows not what to do with it, as the favorable ordinance wasn't passed.”

— Printed in Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883
Then · 1883143 years apartNow · 2026

Liquor licensing was bare-knuckle political economy in 1883, with saloonkeepers openly pooling money to elect friendly councilmen. The detail that sticks is the unspent purse: even when the fix failed, the men who funded it could not simply take their money back. Modern fights over campaign money and alcohol regulation are tamer in form, but the underlying question — who gets to write the rules — is the same.

The original page

Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-08-14. 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
Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, AUG 14, 1883, Page 1
Rights
Public domain
Place
46.03875, -118.47858 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗