The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-03-27
his Question Is Now Interesting
the Liquor Dealers.
: PENDING ~ THE COURTS.


ne question whether saloon licenses In
nnatfls sha. be sl.o1 year or shall re-
LIN IT Sea, as they now are, Is to be de-
s6rnioed by the courts. and manaamus
.receedtngs were commenced yesterday
!. M superior court by Frank Edsen
"a r II. Smith, saloon men, against City
nn<otroIler VIII H Parry and City
ave6curer A. II. Foo:e. In which the whole
xuesston viii be presented for determine
don
fna trouble grows out OF the fact that
Il the recent city election two charter
ankndments were voted upon by the
1setors In regard 20 retail liquor licenses
N ons of these amendments the license
~ nxed at $780, the present figure. and
- the other at si.oO. The law requires
shat In order to secure adoption a pro-
nd charter amendment need secure but
: majority of the votes cast for and
axsinst II. Little interest was taken in
~ charter amendments, and the result
~ thai all but one OF those proposed
ed. including the two contradictory
Hnuor license amendments. In consequence
q this ambiguous decision OF the voters
n the license question. the sa.oonkeepers
tAve been growing gray-headed In at
tapting TO figure out where they stand
% to yesterday no enc has applied for
6 liquor license since the election, but
Yesterday Splith and Edsen went up 10
comptroiler Parry's office With fat roll
- alb I'M sfvy.f bot
sh1y had been granted by the city council
- right TO conduct saloon for the en-
suing year. rendered their 500 and de-
handed license.
The comptroller informed them that he
would be compelled TO refuse the money
end 20 issue n license unless they would
eouss Up with 500 more. Then the two
miopn men went 10 City Treasurer Foote
and rendered him this money. The treas
ufer also politely Informed them that the
~ was just out of $500 liquor licenses
and refused the money.
Then Smith and Edsan's lawyers filed
the suit. the papers for which had already
been drawn IN anticipation OF the action
o. tie city officers. In fact II was agfeed
What should be done. and the tender ard
refusal OF the money were only formaii-
ties.
The suit is for writ Of mandate COM
peiliHg the city officers 10 accept the $500
aud Issue the license. judge Moore, i'm
med!ately upon the fling Of the papers
signed an order citing Mr.. Parry and Mr..
Foose to appear and shew cause on March
q, ST 2 p. m. why they refuse the app.ica-
ton. Then the legal questions viii be
determined
In their complaint the facts above stated
are set forth in legal phraseology. and IL
Is further alleged that the two amend
ments are void and OF no force because
she notice of their submission was not
legally published: because they are in
conflict with the laws of the state and
With one another; and because they are
rot and have never become q part OF the
charter.
Comptroller Parry states that he has
take the ground that the city is entitled
20 81 eco principally to force the question
20 determination In court. and that the
matter has not yet been sufficiently looked
into by the corporation counsei's office 10
enable him 10 say Just what the city's
rights are In the matter He says that
the test case wifi not affect any appiica-
lions now pending. but that in few days
large humber of licenses VIII be applied
Tor, and that for this reason X was deemed
hes. 30 have the license fee determined.
In Mr. Parry's opinion the validity of
the amendments will depend a great deal
on whether liquor licenses can he legally
sxei In any other manner than by a city
ordnance The state law, Mr.. Parry says.
says that this power is vested In the eoun-
ell. and he doubts very much whether the
amount of the license can be fixed by a
charter amendment.