The Moral Gatekeeper: Snohomish’s New Battle Over Who Gets to Sell Liquor

Quite a discussion has arisen in this community over the effect of the amendments made at the last session of the Legislature to the Retail Liquor Dealer's License Law. This amendment consists of only a single section. It seemed so slight that many members of the last session were unaware of any change being effected in the License Law until some time after the adjournment of the Legislature.

This new section confines a license to a single place, its time, and the precinct for which it is granted, and provides that no license shall be granted to any person to retail spirituous liquors until he shall furnish to the County Commissioners proof that in his past he was of good moral character. This clause is that which works so great a change in the License Law of this Territory when taken in connection with the stringent Nuisance and Vagrant Acts passed at the same session making our License Law one of the most stringent in its provisions of any State or Territory.

Usually every one is presumed to be of good moral character; but this provision rebuts this presumption, and requires absolute proof to be offered; and that proof must satisfy the Board of the applicant's good moral character. It is needless to state perhaps that proof must arise from sworn testimony.

The main difference will be as to what shall be considered by the Board a good moral character. Some Commissioners might maintain that every man who paid his license, and gave his bond was of good moral character; others, who disbelieved in the liquor traffic altogether, might say no person applying for a license can be of good moral character, as no good man would follow the business; neither rule is warranted by the letter or spirit of the Law.

As there is no state religion, or religious order of morals authorized by Law, it seems that neither the Mosaic Law of morality, or what any moral individual may deem the dictates of natural morality can well be considered the test of moral character. The only passing test being the Laws of the Land.

The statutes made and provided regulating this business, and kindred subjects relating thereto, principle among these being the nuisance and vagrant acts above referred to, pp.

This examination being required to prevent licenses being granted to those who would be liable to violate these statutes, the bonds being also required, so that, if the commissioners should err, or the party who had received the license, should violate any of these provisions, a remedy would remain to secure dues, assessed for violation of Law.

It is always better to prevent the commission of crimes, than to allow them to be perpetrated and then have to punish. Hence it seems the whole question could be tested in this way. Has the applicant ever violated any of the provisions of the statutes? naming them in succession, or reading them to the witness for his information. The next question being; from his past mode of life, would you expect him to be one who would be liable to violate any of these statutes if a license was granted to him? If the party had violated any of these statutes, then a license was granted excepted for he discharging a person likely to violate them himself or allow others to do within his house, then it certainly would not be a person of good moral character under the statutes.

If he was a person who had not or would not be likely to violate this class of statutes judging from his past life, then under the statute, he certainly would be entitled to receive his license, and be considered a person of good moral character for all the purposes of this statute.