The Ellensburg dawn. [volume] (Ellensburg, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1911-10-19
CITY ATTORNEY
RENDERS OPINION
October IS, 1911.
Mr. John A. Crimp,
City Clerk,
EllenSburg. Wash
Ellensburg, Wash.

City Clerk,
Ellensburg, Wash.
Dear Sir: Regarding the petition
of Mrs. A. A. Gould and others for
a special election on December ),
1911, on the question of whether the
sale of intoxicating liquor shall be
licensed and permitted in the city Of
Ellensburg, | have to advise that you
are not warranted in publishing no.
tees of, or undertaking to call, such
election, at that time, or at any time
before the general county election Of
1912.
The language of the local option
statute (Session Laws of 1903,
| Chapter 81 is unfortunately doubt
full in respect of the time for hold
! ing such elections, and is susceptible
of two readings. But the statute
makes evident the intent and pur-
pose of the legislature that in gener-
al the question of whether the sale
OF liquors shall be licensed or pro-
hibited is to be submitted only at
the time of holding the general bien-
NAL county election.
The statute was approved March
~, 1909. Then then next general
county election was in November,
1910. And the provision for spe-
cial election on the liquor question
was undoubtedly made to enable
cities and other units that so desired
to hold an election on the question,
without having to wait for the No
vember election in 1910. The most
reasonable view, and the one gen.
orally supported, is that the provis-
ion for a special election covered
only the period intervening between
the time that the statute became eff
fective, and the Novembr election Of
1910, and after that period no spe-
cial election on the question is au-
thorized.
Any other view would permit Pc
titioners in such cases, at their OPP
ton, to avoid the clear intent of the
legislature, and call a special cleo
ton Immediately after the general
county election, by simply withhold
ing a petition until the county cleo
ton has been held. Indeed it would
have an even more absurd effect, for
in the case of cities or other units
in which the question is first SUBJ
mitted at a general county election,
it would permit the defeated party
to Immediately petition for, and call,
a special election re-submitting the
question. The Legislative intent, as
is clear from the statute, is to avoid
a multiplicity of elections.
This view was expressed by Mr..
". p. Bell, then attorney general,
in an opinion dated March 10, 1911,
to the municipal officers Il believe)
of Toppenish, wherein he stated as
follows:
LAS | understand section 2, chap
ter 81, of the Sessions Laws of 1909,
being the local option law, there
could be a special election held in
any unit prior to the general cleo
ton in 1910, but after such date the
matter can only be submitted at the
general election, biennially. 1t is
therefore my opinion that under this
law a special election can not now
, be called for the purpose Of voting
on the sale of intoxicating liquors in
your city"
An official opinion to the same
effect has recently been given by the
prosecuting attorney of King county
to the auditor of that county.
The same view, according to press
dispatches, is announced by Judge
Mitchell of the superior court Of
Thurston county, who last week
granted temporary injunction
against an attempt to hold such an
election in the City of Tenino, on the
ground that such election would be
void if held.
In all probability the question will
be settled in short time by the SUI
rreme court In the meantime l adj
wise that no election be called. for
it is apparent that unless the ST.
rreme court should put different
construction upon the statute than
the one hereinabove indicated, the
election would go for nothing.
Very respectfully,
JOHN H. McDANIELS.