The High License Battle
As Seattle debates the future of the liquor trade, the city's editorial voice warns that failing to support 'high license' regulation will only invite full prohibition.
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 saloon keepers of Seattle would have no cause to complain if the license required them were placed at twice the amount of the present figure. They should be simply satisfied if they are let alone, for a season should teach them to be content with their present situation. That situation will be far worse in the future, but it will not be better for any extended period. Efforts to make it better will inevitably make it worse—will hasten the day when the traffic shall be no more. As between prohibition, on the one hand, and high license and regulation on the other, the people of Seattle are overwhelmingly for high license and regulation. As between prohibition and free whisky, they are for prohibition. These are facts, and the sooner they are realized by those who oppose the high license ordinance, the better it will be for them. They should heed their steps, for a false step may be fatal.
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”
This editorial reflects the intense, high-stakes municipal maneuvering over alcohol regulation that preceded Washington's eventual 1916 prohibition. Today, the debate over liquor licensing and city zoning persists as a core tension in Seattle's regulatory governance, though the focus has shifted from morality to public health and urban character.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.