The Judge and the Paper: A Judicial Power Play in 1885 Seattle
When a Seattle newspaper editor made a habit of attacking Chief Justice Greene, the court didn't just sue for libel—it took direct control of the editorial desk.
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 year or so ago, John Coleman and J. M. Coleman sold the Seattle Chronicle to Thaddeus Hanford. After taking possession, Hanford found that W. L. Latch and others held a mortgage against it for several thousand dollars, which mortgage Hanford also bought. The paper running behind, the owners advanced money to keep it going. Finally, they attached the paper and had the court appoint a receiver to take charge of and conduct the concern. They named Mr. U. Dibble for the position, and he received the appointment. Mr. M. O. Young was employed to take charge of the editorial department, and held the position for several months. A few weeks ago Mr. Young retired, and T. C. Montgomery, for a long time connected with the Tacoma papers, was employed. The policy of the paper under this management has been one continual attack upon Judge Greene, Chief Justice of the Territory. When court was called to order yesterday, the Judge renewed the facts which led to the appointment of a receiver for the paper, stating: 'The newspaper appears to be animated by a spite, and occupied mainly in berating the Judge of this Court. Theoretically I am running the paper, though practically I am not. In nearly every issue there is some article reflecting upon the Judge of this Court, threatening him with violence. I am going to make an order that the publication of that paper will be discontinued until its present editor is discharged, and that the receiver appoint no editor hereafter who has not first received the approval of this Court.'
“There appears to me to be something supremely ridiculous and absurd in the Court conducting a newspaper which berates its own Judge.”
This 1885 case of judicial overreach echoes modern tensions regarding the relationship between the courts, the press, and the influence of powerful creditors. It highlights the historically volatile nature of Seattle's early media landscape, where papers were often treated as personal instruments for political warfare.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.