Year: 1867

Inc lhCtubc 4ucouons


ApplieatiOn for scrit of Mandate, vs. County
comn,issioners The Commissioners refused to
grant license to certain saloon keepers in this
CITY on the ground that the petitioners had TO
obtain a majority of the adult white Inhabitants
of this precinct and that this included the fe-
male adults as well as the male, and on Wed
nesday last an application was made before
Judge Wyche by the petitioners for peremps
tory writ of mandate on the Commissioners
compelling them to issue the licenses. As the
matter was of general interest, large number
of our citizens attended the hearing.


The Court took occasion to express its views
on the propriety of the Commissioners granting,
or refusing license in these cases, and TO dwell
on the considerations for and against the Ii
cense.


The opinion was expressed, that the idea to
close the saloons and prevent the sale of liquors
would be to destroy the business and impover-
ish the County, was erroneous, and that while
such proceeding might embarrass and even
break up those who had invested largely in the
business, yet the effect, on the whole, would be
to enrich rather than impoverish country. The
wealth of country was the product OF the hands
and head the. muscle ard minds of people,
and while liquors on the whole, rather weak
ened both mind and body than strengthened
them, the effect consequently was 10 lessen this
producing power rather than to increase it, and
to that extent to impoverish a country. The
Court alluded to the idle habits formed by
drinking and showed the impoverishing effects
of these, and alluded to the fact that our crimi-
nal expenses were incurred largely by drinking;
and SO was of the opinion that it the action ot
LIZA. commissioners could close these saloons,
aud stop this dissipation, the gan pecuniaily
to theecOmmunty, would be gfeater than the
loss of the income from licenses. This, the
Court said, was one view to take of the matter.
But if Notwithstanding the refusal to license
these saloons, it might be evident that they
would be kept open and the sale of liquors con-
tinued Just as before, and that u refusal 10 IL
cense would in way lessen dissipation, and
that the only effect would be to lose the revenue
to the County and to produce litigation at the
expense of the County; and so all the evils of
dissipation were to be borne without imposing
on these saloons the burdens that might be
placed on them, then this was another view TO
take of the matter, and it was the duty Of theT
Commissioners to consider their duty under The
one the other view and under all the other
views in which the matter might present Itself


The act evidently Intended that the moral us
pect of he,queston should not be overlooked
by the Commissioners, and yet probably the idea
of revenue was the controlling purpose Of the
license law with the legislature, aud 1t was prob.
able that in the selection Of the Commissioners
the people considered their financial capacity
rather than any views that might be entertuiDed
on questions OF temperance or on any other murs
al questions.


In considering these questions, the Cour, said
it did not follow that because the view of the
law as taken by the Commissioners might be
correct that therefore this view could be enforced
and the violators of the law punished. The trial
of jury had received the higneSt eucomiums and
might be entitled to all that had ever been said
in its praise, and get it could not be denied that
it was used rs often as shield TO guilt 1t
protection to innocence, and the Court cited ca
to show that it was not practicable to enforce
the law in certain cases OF general interest and
where the public took decided and adverse opin
ions.


In this case the Court said there were many
provisions of the license law upon which the
Commissioners had to exercise their Judgment
and discretion and there were no facts before
the Court to show whether this discretion had
been wisely and properly exercised or not, even if
this writ could issue in any case proper for
judgment and discretion by the lower tribunal
which was not in fact the Office of the writ.


The Commissioners had been selected by the
people,to ge the saIEaiss-ef the county be-
cause of their peculiar fitness and of the couf,
dence of The people in them, and this Court had
been selected for TO such purpose, and yet to
grant this writ here would be assuming in fact
to regulate the affairs of the County.


The view Of the law to adult white inhab-
itants, taken by the Commissioners, was proba.
bly, correct, Tut its construction by this Court
Would De proper Wnen case was before II, and
on the whole, without going farther into a state
ment of the the Court was clearly Of the
opinion that the writ asked in this case must be
refused, and the following orde. was accordingly
made in the premises:


AT CHAMBERS, l


WAILA WALLA, W. T., Nov. G, 1861


Henry Boyle, W. II. Barrett, ct al, rs. A. II.
Reynolds, 5. N. Wait and W. 7. Barnes, County
Commissioners of Walla Walla County


APPLICATION FOR PERENProRY WRIT OF MANDATE


Aud now the defendants appearing in person
and by counsel, Messrs. Dugnn and Lassater,
and the plaintiffs by counsel, Messrs. Mix, Laug>
ford and Cation and the defendants vtgmade
due return to the alternate writ issued by the
Court. and issues of law and fact having been
formed as required by law, and after argument
of counsel, and upon cOnsieraiionby the Court.
it is accordingly now here ordered and consid.
cred that the rule the defendants to show
cause why peremptory writ of mandate should
not issue against them, be discharged and thai
the perem?tory writ asked he denied. and that
this application he dismissed at the costs of the
plaintiffs to be taxed, and that Judgment he en-
tered for costs against the plaintiffs, and that
execution may issue therefor.


j. L. WYcHE, Judge