Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1915-06-18
LOCAL COURT HEARS
FIGHT ON DRY Law
WET" INTERESTS OF THE STATE
BEGIN ATTACK ON PROHIBI-
TION AMENDMENT.

Legal fight against the prohibition
amendment adopted last fall was be-
gun before Superior Judge D. F..
Wright in the local superior court
Tuesday with attorneys for the wet"
forces on one side and the attorney
generals Office on the other. Before
the legal battle is ended some of the
interests involved may carry their
case to the supreme court of the
United States. The controversy is
certain to go to the highest court in
this state.
Three distinct interests are in
volved in combined tack upon the
statute. The suit was started in the
name of Nj. & K Gottstein, a Seattle
wholesale liquor dealing firm, and the
initial movement was backed by the
wholesalers and retailers. Later en-
tered the hotel proprietors and the
manufacturers located in the state.
In the original suit only state ques-
tions were raised and on the appeal
to the supreme court, which is GER
tain to follow, the wholesale and re-
tail dealers will have to depend. The
federal questions were brought in by
the hotel men and the manufacturers.
Hotel Owners in Fight.
Hotel owners point out the discrim-
ination that the new prohibition
act makes against them. They raise
the point that the statute discrimi-
mates between a dweller in a hotel
and one who maintains his own
home; and that it gives wide open
privileges of sale of liquors to drug
firms, while it forbids the hotels to
serve their guests and in other ways
discriminates against hotel owners
and hotel residents. The questions
involve the interference with inter-
state commerce and bring up points
which can be carried to the supreme
court of the United States.
The manufacturers emphasize the
point that they have been deprived Of
the right to transact in this state
what the proposed law recognizes as
a legal industry If conducted outside
Washington. The manufacturers set
up the claim that most of their
business is with points outside Wash
ington and that by the terms Of the
law they are forbidden to remain in
operation to handle very small local
trade, whereas If they are driven from
the state they can supply this busi-
ness legally.
The main fight, however, centers
about the Gottstein complaint. This
issue involves the regularity of the
adoption of the initiative and referen-
dunn amendment to the state consti-
tuition as we'll as the constitutionality
Of the prohibition statute.
Attack Publication Notice.
It Is claimed that the publication
Of notices of both the initiative and
referendum amendment and the pro-
hibition bill were not made in accord
ance with law and it is argued that
the publication feature is of vital inn
portance.
The question involved is deeper
than the bill or amendment affected,
for attorneys claim that if notice to
electors must be given in certain
manner and that the ignoring of this
method can be upheld, notices to liti-
gants can be "jobbed," the publica-
ton of calls for sales Of state prop
critics may be obscured in the same
manner that the initiative and refer
endum and prohibition notices were
misprnted. The far-reaching effect
of a decision bearing upon the ques-
ton of valid notice by publication has
attracted the attention of attorneys
throughout the state to the case.
If the courts should hold with the
attorneys in the Gottstein case either
the so-called prohibition act could be
knocked out or the initiative and ref
erendum amendment could be vita
ted If the initiative and referendum
amendment is held to have been ille-
gally submitted, all proceedings
under that section of the constitution
would be knocked out. II the So
called prohibition act alone is held to
be invalid, the regulation OF the liquor
traffic would continue under the old