Seattle’s Growing Pains and the Charter Debate
As the city rapidly transformed, a newly formed committee of business and labor leaders debated whether to rewrite the city's charter to address corruption and municipal growth.
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.
A movement has been set on foot by Alderman Korn, in what he assumes to be compliance with a popular wish, for a revision of the city charter. Agreeable to his motion, the city council has invited the cooperation of other organized bodies in the city to consider the wisdom of making some changes. The committee, which will be known as the charter advisory committee, will consist of Aldermen Korn and Snyder, Delegates Shipley and Hanford; Thomas F. Prosch and J. T. Ronald on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce; E. C. Neufelder and R. H. Goldie for the Board of Trade, and one representative each of the Builders' Council and Western Central Labor Union. The functions of the committee are highly important, and the result of their labors cannot fail to be immediately interesting. It is not altogether certain, however, that this is the most opportune time for such a movement, because the charter cannot be held to have yet been fairly tried. The municipal revolution precipitated by the extraordinary changes in the conditions of Seattle made some radical alterations in the machinery necessary. Not only had new conditions to be met, they had to be met in such a way as to perpetuate existing municipal engagements and obligations. It would be ridiculous to say that the charter is perfect; no system of organic law can be adjusted to meet the necessities, the conflicting interests and even the shrewdness of human nature with absolute freedom from imperfection. It is for the best interest of the city that none should be adopted hastily, and that no merely experimental innovation should involve the city in another expensive election at this time.
“It would be ridiculous to say that the charter is perfect; no system of organic law can be adjusted to meet the necessities, the conflicting interests and even the shrewdness of human nature with absolute freedom from imperfection.”
The 1891 debate over Seattle's charter reflects the city’s historic tension between rapid growth and the desire for stable, incorruptible governance. Just as in the 19th century, current-day Seattleites continue to grapple with whether constitutional changes are the solution to the city's shifting municipal needs.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.