The Price of Peace in Seattle's Streets
A local editor argues that the National Guard is the necessary shield against the 'lawless' elements of civil unrest, urging the city to treat protesters not as political actors, but as criminals.
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 role of the National Guard has been frequently called upon to maintain the law in our city, and the people have responded to this call promptly and willingly. It is a matter of concern that the United States has within recent years felt the necessity for the intervention of the National Guard in the story of the Orange riot in New York, the disastrous strikes in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Baltimore, Toronto, and in the story of the trouble here in Seattle only a few months ago. The value of the property saved to the cities of New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Milwaukee within the past ten years by the efforts of the National Guard is many hundred fold greater than the cost of maintaining the militia. The National Guard is not to be partisan, not to be embroiled in any political or industrial controversy, but simply to preserve the peace, protect property, and vindicate the law. When a riot might be in progress, it is his duty to stop it. When the law is defied, it is his duty to vindicate it. The National Guard is often called upon to take a stand contrary to his sympathies and against his friends, but he seldom fails to bear bravely the burden of his duty. Usually the rage of the lawless is turned upon him more bitterly than upon anyone else. They fail to see that he is the personification of the law, and that he comes to command the peace. Without him, the history of the United States for the past ten years would have been a history of bloodshed and state strife.
“The National Guard is not to be partisan, not to be embroiled in any political or industrial controversy, but simply to preserve the peace, protect property, and vindicate the law.”
This 1886 editorial reflects the perennial tension between municipal authorities, labor unrest, and the use of state-sanctioned force to protect property. Today's Seattle debates regarding police presence, civil disobedience, and property rights during protests mirror these exact arguments, showing that the definition of 'public order' remains a contested cornerstone of local civic life.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.