The Trial of the City Marshal
In 1885, Seattle’s police chief faced an impeachment trial over the politics of morality, saloon regulation, and the limits of the Mayor’s authority.
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 City Council met pursuant to adjournment. Ordered that the resignation of Councilman Northrup be taken from the table and the resignation of said Councilman from the third ward be accepted. Ordered that the Council proceed with the investigation of the articles for the impeachment of Justin H. Woolery, Chief of Police. Ex-Chief Justices Orange Jacobs and J. H. Lewis appeared as attorneys for Mr. Woolery. Judge Lewis argued that the Chief of Police was not obligated to enforce Territorial law, but only city ordinances, and that the Mayor lacked the authority to direct the Chief to make complaints against saloon owners. He claimed the impeachment was a political mistake, stating, 'In four weeks we will have an election, when the people will rise in their might and settle this matter.' City Attorney Hanford answered the objections, and the Council refused to quash any part of the charges. The Chief entered a plea of not guilty to all articles, and the trial was set for the following Wednesday.
“I am for law and order, and it is a dangerous thing to stretch authority.”
This 1885 clash over 'law and order' and the scope of executive power mirrors current debates in Seattle regarding police oversight, the role of the Mayor's office in enforcement priorities, and the political weaponization of administrative codes.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.