The Chief of Police Fires Back
Seattle's top cop trades accusations of corruption and 'lewd' policing with City Councilman C. B. Bagley in a public feud.
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.
To the Editor: In your issue of the 17th inst. concerning a meeting of the council, an article appeared to the effect that during the proceedings Delegate C. B. Bagley made a statement relative to my action as chief of police and insinuated that I was in collusion with gamblers, and further said that only nine gamblers were arrested out of 128 games running in this city. This statement is absolutely and unqualifiedly false. According to the best obtainable information, there were only thirty-four games running in this city, all of which were apprehended, prosecuted and fined upon January 15, 1891. Mr. Bagley, as a member of the city government, should have filed information if he knew of such infractions. Concerning his statement that I had had lewd women arrested because they were not voters, it is unworthy of notice. I will not be driven to prosecute any unfortunate to gratify Mr. Bagley or any other person, and I hereby invite him to prefer charges against me and let the proper authority pass upon any or all of my official acts.
“I will not be driven to prosecute any unfortunate to gratify Mr. Bagley or any other person.”
This 1891 public spat over police efficacy and the treatment of vulnerable populations echoes Seattle's ongoing, century-long debate over policing, vice enforcement, and who the city's ordinances are actually designed to protect.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.