Bagley Calls Out Selective Policing
A city council member accuses the police of targeting marginalized women while ignoring male-run gambling houses.
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 resolution was introduced by C. B. Bagley, asking why out of so many gambling houses only nine were 'pulled.' He wanted fair play. He did not think that it was the intention of the law or of that body that the chief of police should only proceed against a lot of wretched, unfortunate women who have no votes and presumably never contributed to a campaign fund. He should proceed against the gamblers and plug-uglies. He knew that gambling houses were open and the chief must know it. Mr. Willis said he thought this was a very frivolous way of proceeding against the chief. Mr. Bagley replied that the police knew very well that they were going about the business in such a way as to make the people tired. The resolution was tabled.
“He did not think that it was the intention of the law... that the chief of police should only proceed against a lot of wretched, unfortunate women who have no votes.”
The tension between aggressive enforcement against the vulnerable and the neglect of organized vice is a recurring theme in Seattle’s political history. C. B. Bagley’s 1891 challenge to the police department’s selective enforcement mirrors long-standing civic arguments about who the law is intended to protect and who it is used to marginalize.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.