Dry Districts, Wet Phone Lines: The Loophole in Washington’s Local Option Bill
An Anti-Saloon League official says the bill targets door-to-door liquor canvassing—not a telephone order from a thirsty household.
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.
OLYMPIA, Jan. 23.—Superintendent Doty of the Anti-Saloon League denies that the intent of the local option bill is to prevent the delivery at a residence in a dry district of beer, whiskey or other stimulants. But he declares the bill does aim to stop the canvassing by breweries and wholesale liquor houses in residence districts. Mr. Doty says that in many sections of the state beer wagons and agents make a house-to-house canvass like grocery men or book agents. This will be counter to the local option law if the bill passes.
It will be legal to deliver liquor in dry territories if the contract or sale is consummated in a “wet” district. A telephone message to a brewery is considered a contract outside of the “dry” limits, whereas a doorstep order will be considered a sale.
“A telephone message to a brewery is considered a contract outside of the “dry” limits, whereas a doorstep order will be considered a sale.”
Washington’s local-option era was a patchwork of wet and dry jurisdictions, and this story shows how easily commerce slipped between them. Today, debates over direct-to-consumer alcohol shipping and delivery apps turn on similar questions: where is the sale actually made, and which jurisdiction gets to regulate it?
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.