The Seattle Liquor Board's Battle for Moral Standing
A landmark 1886 legal challenge in King County forces a judge to define the limits of civic power when local officials refuse to grant a liquor license based on a claimant’s character.
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 Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer reports on a legal battle regarding the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners of King County. W. A. Harrington and A. J. Shattuck sought a writ of mandate to compel the board to issue a retail liquor license for their establishment, running from November 1885 to November 1886. The board had refused the license, citing petitions and remonstrances from local residents who complained of the character of the proprietors. Judge Hanford, presiding, noted that the commissioners are tasked with the 'power to grant licenses to persons to keep certain houses or or to run the same.' Hanford ruled that the commissioners' discretion is threefold: to license if the fee is paid, and to refuse until 'satisfactory proof of good moral character' and an approved bond are provided. The court affirmed that the commissioners are required to act for the people and that the refusal to grant the license was a lawful exercise of their duty to maintain public morality.
“The commissioners are required to treat grocery and other licenses as a trust for the public; they are required to act for the people.”
This 1886 dispute over the 'moral character' required for liquor licensing echoes modern debates in Seattle regarding land use, neighborhood autonomy, and the power of local residents to block businesses or developments they deem incompatible with their community’s standards.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.