The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-02-03
THE LICENSE FUNDS.
State Wins the Case Against the
City of Spokane Falls.
SEATTLE AND TACOMA LOSE.
A Total of s37 400 Due From the Three
Cities-Others Have Paid
What was Due.

OLYMPIA, Feb. o. Especial - The su-
preme court today decided in favor of the
state in the case wherein action was
brought by Attorney General Jones to
recover from the city of Spokane Falls
the sum of $1,000 and interest due the
state under the act of 1883, compelling all
incorporated cities to pay over to the
state fund 10 per cent. of the
The case was submitted about ten DAYS
since. This was considered test case,
and. under the ruling, Seattle will be COM
PEELED to pay over TO the state about
1880 and interest, and Tacoma about
5000, making total of about S37, 200 due
from these cities alone. Other cities of
the state have generally paid up
The full text of the decision is as follows:
of spokane Falls, appellee. Appeal from the
superior court of spokane county.
This was an action by appellant to recover from
by it for licenses for the sale OF Intoxicating
liquors from the I'd day of April, 1855, to the
month of December, 1890.
defendant collected and received into its treas
ury the sum of Sl02,000 for such licenses, oil of
which it converted to its own use and refuses to
pay any part thereof to the plaintiff. To this
complaint the defendant interposed a general
demurrer, which was sustained by the court.
Judgment was accordingly entered for the de-
fendant, from which plaintiff appealed to this
court.
By an act of the legislature of the late terri
tory. approved January %, 1856, entitled SAN
act to amend an act entitled an act to ineorpor-
vember 2s, 1885" it is provided that the city
shall have power to license, tax, regulate and
restrain barrooms, drinking shops or saloons and
that the city treasurer must receive and keep all
n fxy ht-f
otherwise, and pay out the same upon the war
rant of the mayor attested by the clerk.
And the most material question for our
consideration in this controversy is whether the
provisions OF the act above mentioned are re-
pealed by a later general law. approved Febru-
airy 2 ISIS, entitled: IAN act TO regulate. re-
strain, license prohibit the sale OF intoxicat-
ing liquors. 1t is provided by section of the
latter statute that the mayor and council, or
other governing body OF each incorporated town
or incorporated village in Washington territory
shall have the sole and exclusive au-
thority and power to regulate, restrain,
license or prohibit the sale or disposal of
ing liquors within the corporate limits of their
respective cities, towns or villages, provided,
said license fee shall be paid annually in adj
vance to the treasurer of the city, town or vii
lage. who shall pay 10 per cent. thereof into the
general fund of the territorial treasury, and
hand the remaining 80 per cent. into the general
fund of the city, town or village treasury"
1t is contended BY counsel for appellee that
the general law will not repeal or amend the
special act unless it is the manifest and clear in
tention OF the legislature so to do which must
be gathered from the language used in the act
itself, and that such an intention is not made to
appear. This is conceded to be correct general
proposition of law by counsel for appellant but
he claims that in this instance the legislature
has clearly manifested its intention to so repeal
or modify the special charter of appellee, in SO
far as the general statute is inconsistent
herewith, for the. reason that the
act of February 2. 1888, is a
general revision of all prior laws relating to the
same subject, and obviously designed to super
cede them. An examination of fhe charters of
the various municipal organizations throughout
the territory, discloses the fact, that while they
were generally clothed with the power to license
and Intoxicating 1iqdors within their
respective limits, there was no uni
formity of rule to the disposition
OF the funds collected from licenses Some of
the charters required a portion of the MONEYS
collected for licenses TO sell intoxicating LIQUORS
to be paid into the county treasury, while others