Newport's Saloonkeepers Take Their Dry-Election Fight to the State Supreme Court
The men who lost the local option vote on September 7 say the petition was short on valid signatures. Twice now the town's lawyers have knocked the case down in Judge Sullivan's court, and an appeal to the state supreme court looks certain.
The case of the saloonmen of Newport against the town, contesting the validity of the local option election held Sept. 7, remains undecided as to its merits and will likely have a hearing before the supreme court of the state.
When the case first came up in superior court the attorneys for the town demurred, alleging that the petition as presented did not show sufficient grounds for action. The saloonmen had alleged that the petition on which the election was held was illegal, because it did not show the precinct in which each signer resided. The court sustained the demurrer, holding that in towns of the size of Newport, where there are no wards, the whole town being included in one precinct, it was not necessary to show the precinct of residence.
Attorneys for the saloonmen asked for time to prepare an amended complaint, which was granted, and the case again came on for hearing at Colville Monday before Judge Sullivan, of Spokane. The attorneys for the town submitted a motion to strike out the amended complaint, alleging that the new complaint was not merely an amended complaint, but was an entirely new one, stating as it did new grounds for action. The new contention is that the petition contains numerous names which are not followed by date of signing and postoffice address, there being sufficient such omissions to take off enough names to make the petition short of the required 30 per cent of names to call the election.
Judge Sullivan sustained the motion of the town's attorneys. It is reported that an appeal to the supreme court will be taken from the rulings of Judge Sullivan.
“The new contention is that the petition contains numerous names which are not followed by date of signing and postoffice address.”
Newport voted itself dry in September 1909, and the men who sold the whiskey went straight to the courts rather than close their doors. The fight turned not on whether the town wanted saloons but on whether the petition had enough properly signed names — a procedural argument that still decides local ballot measures today. Washington went dry statewide only in 1916, and the same questions of who signs, who counts and who certifies remain live in every county initiative.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.