Same Streets
← All stories

Seattle's Saloons Win the Right to Run All Night

A liquor-dealers' protest killed the 1 a.m. closing ordinance at City Council, even as aldermen and delegates fought over Phinney's Woodland streetcar franchise.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

The city council met last night in both branches, and the board of aldermen passed eighteen ordinances. The board rejected the order requiring saloons to close between 1 and 5 o'clock a.m. The delegates devoted most of the session to the consideration of Phinney's Woodland car line franchise, which was considered section by section. After one of the most sharply contested debates over the terms, progress was reported on the bill. Both houses will meet on Friday night.

In the board of aldermen, J. H. Campbell, president of the Liquor Dealers' Association, appeared for the Retail Liquor Dealers' Association to protest against the bill. He said the members pay nearly $100,000 revenue annually to the city besides other property being taxed. He did not know the object of the bill, but if it was to get people to go to their homes, it would be a nullity. If passed, it would put a premium on law breaking, because there were club rooms and restaurants which would sell liquors, as well as drug stores; it would simply take business from those who pay license to do a legal business. The ordinance was defeated, Carle, Cram and Brewer voting aye; Ingram, Miller, Stocks and Daulton voting no.

In the house of delegates, the Woodland car line franchise produced a stubborn contest over whether Guy C. Phinney should be required to build a sixteen-foot roadway on ungraded streets. Phinney objected to the provision as onerous, saying he would put the streets in as good condition as he found them and was willing to indemnify the city against damage claims. The amendment was carried. Phinney said he ran his cars all last winter at a loss of $150 a month and was willing to agree to run every half hour under a forfeiture, though he appealed against a $5,000 forfeit. The committee reported progress before a vote was taken.

“If it was to get people to go to their homes, it would be a nullity.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893
Then · 1893133 years apartNow · 2026

Seattle still argues over how late bars may stay open and how much the city should extract from the nightlife economy. In 1893 the liquor dealers won by framing regulation as bad for licensed business; the same playbook echoes in today's debates over closing times and licensing.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-13. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, APR 13, 1893, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60323, -122.33028 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗