The Constitutional Battle Over Fruit Inspection
A Superior Court judge rules that Skagit County fruit inspectors cannot be appointed, effectively stalling the state’s ability to regulate the local orchard industry.
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.
Judge Joiner of the superior court at Mount Vernon rendered an important decision which, if affirmed by the supreme court, will render inoperative that part of the horticultural law relating to county fruit inspectors. B. V. Egbert of Snohomish, who has been acting fruit inspector for Skagit county, brought a mandamus proceeding against the auditor to compel the payment of salary warrants. The court held that the county fruit inspector is a regular officer with duties and compensation prescribed by law, and as such should be elected and not appointed, and that the law providing for the appointment of a county official is unconstitutional. The case will be appealed to the supreme court.
“The court held that the county fruit inspector is a regular officer... and as such should be elected and not appointed.”
Regulatory battles over the power of local officials are a perennial feature of Washington politics. This dispute highlights the tension between the state's early agricultural oversight and the strict requirements of the 1889 state constitution.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.