The Fight Over the 'Moral' Climate of Seattle
A scathing editorial decries the Commissioners' decision to permit a 'disreputable' business in a respectable community, sparking a debate on whether law can dictate morality.
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 temperance men have a desire to express through this paper their disappointment at the action taken by the County Commissioners toward the latter part of their term, granting limits for the sale of intoxicating liquors. This action, taken in a two-thirds majority to screen eighth-tenths of the population in their election precincts, was a move that defies the true spirit of republican institutions. If such a law be on the statute book, it is a foul blot upon the pages, which every right-minded man and woman will say ought to be speedily removed. We would then call the attention not only of temperance people, but of all who respect human rights and true republican principles, to scrutinize closely the law and the encroachments and usurpations of the liquor traffic. Let them rally as one man in favor of that which is truly republican.
“If the law be on the statute book, it is a foul blot upon the pages, which every right-minded man and woman will say ought to be speedily removed.”
This debate over local control of zoning and liquor licensing mirrors the ongoing tension in Seattle regarding where certain businesses are permitted and the power of neighborhood groups to contest them. The 'moral' language used by 1885 activists finds its modern equivalent in contemporary battles over the character and use of urban space.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.