The Price of Good Governance in 1889
As Seattle prepared to vote for new city leadership, a local editorial warned that the city's future would be decided by whether citizens cared more about the public interest or personal profit.
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 duty of making good laws and guarding the community by the election of honest men to the city government is a matter of the utmost importance. We are often asked: 'What is there in it for me?' The only way to prevent men of this class from running the city government is to refuse to let the nominations go by default. It is the duty of every man to take a personal interest in this coming election. If this is done, it will make a public sentiment that will prevent the nomination of unfit men and will secure for us a strong government, which, while always desirable, is especially so in the present exigency. Unless this matter is taken in hand by honest men, the success of the organized machine here will be a certainty for the control of city affairs.
“We are often asked: 'What is there in it for me?' The only way to prevent men of this class from running the city government is to refuse to let the nominations go by default.”
In 1889, Seattle was grappling with rapid growth and a lack of accountability in city hall. More than 130 years later, the recurring struggle to elect leaders who prioritize long-term public welfare over special interests remains a central, unresolved tension in Seattle politics.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.