The City Hall Compromise on Vice
A heated debate over whether to permit gambling and vice reveals the deep divide between reformers and those who viewed 'sin' as a necessary economic pressure valve.
A conference was held yesterday between the fire commissioners, the police commissioners, and the city council to address charges regarding the non-enforcement of ordinances against gambling and other social vices. Police Commissioner Crawford explained that the board did not intend to shirk responsibility, but sought to control vice through 'periodical raids and fines' rather than total prohibition. He noted that pressure from the mercantile community suggested that driving these elements out would only scatter them into residential neighborhoods. Alderman Hall argued for a high-license system to control the 'low dives,' while others, like Mr. Wilcox, warned that total enforcement would 'paralyze the whole country' and destroy tax revenue. The council ultimately rejected a resolution to pledge support to the police, highlighting the friction between moral reformers and those prioritizing the city's commercial growth.
“It is not policy to wipe out a quarter of a million dollars of the city's revenue. A man's actions is the only reputation he has for morality.”
The 1891 debate over whether to 'license' vice to keep it contained mirrors Seattle's modern, often circular arguments regarding public safety, harm reduction, and the management of illicit activities in a growing urban economy. The tension between the 'moral reformers' and the 'merchants' who feared economic paralysis remains a staple of Seattle civic discourse.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.