The City’s Costly Theatrical Blunder
A Seattle judge rules that the city cannot revoke a theater's license without refunding the operator's $1,000 fee.
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 case on appeal of the city against J. J. Clark and John W. Considine, charged with a misdemeanor in conducting the People's theater adjoining and connected with a saloon, resulted in the city being defeated. Judge Humes ruled that while the city council had the authority to enact new regulations, they could not cancel a license for which the operator had already paid $1,000 without offering a refund of the unearned portion. The judge stated that the city must deal as fairly as an individual, and that keeping the money while simultaneously revoking the privilege to operate was an act of bad faith.
“The obligation to do justice rested equally upon the municipality and the individual.”
This 1894 case highlights a timeless Seattle tension: the municipal government's attempt to regulate 'vice' (saloons and theaters) while simultaneously treating those same businesses as essential revenue streams. Today, the debate over licensing and municipal control continues, albeit with different regulatory frameworks, as the city balances the ethics of public policy with the reality of government-collected fees.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.