Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1882-04-18
Foreman Grand Jury.

Answers to the questions Of the Grand
Jury by the Judge:
The section of the law on which the
answers to these questions depends is a.
follows:
SECTION BE il enacted by Ne
Legislative Assembly of the Territory Of
Washington, that it shall bs unlawful
for any porsOn> or persons in this Terri
tory to open on Sunday, for tho purpose
of trade or sale Of goods, wares, or msr-
chandiss, any shop. store or building, or
place of business whatever: Prorided,
That this act shall apply to hotels only
in 30 far a. intoxicating liquors are con-
cerned, and shall not apply TO drug
stores, livery stables and undertakers.
The prohibition is evidently general,
except 90 far a. it in limited by the pro-
viso, and q construction of the proviso
will furnish an answer to the questions
which You have prop0unded to the
court.
take it that this proviso Of the act
shall apply to tho hotels, drug stores,
livery stables and undertaken, and
places Of that particular description in
their proper use as such. That 10, the
proviso applies to- . hotel 40 hotel,
q drug store a. drug store. livery
stable as livery stable to an under
taker as an undertaken, and that 1t
would be contrary to the spirit of the
law and in violation Of the law for any
one to attempt to carry on any OF these
prohibited businesses under the cover
Of hotel business, drug business,
livery stable or undertaking business.
For example: II a dry goods man,
who saw that he could not coll, undsr
the main enacting clause of the statute,
his goods ON Sunday. and he therefore
took part of his stock to an undertaking
establishment to sell it there On Sunday
he could not be protected under the
law. 1t is clear to my mind that it 10
against tho law. So, If man, who all
the week was selling cigars aud liquors,
should make an arrangement with \
livery stable keeper BY which he should
sell from livery stable on Sunday, it
would be clearly to my mind violation
of the law, and to the mind Of any PER
son with common sense it would b an
evasion Of the law. And the same rea-
soning may be applied to hotels and
drug stores. Hotels arc places for the
accommodation of guests, Where those
things shat arc useful and convenient
70 them are kept and disposed Of 70
them at such prices - may b agreed
upon. Now for the purpose Of carry
ING on that kind of business, afordinR
lodoment and convonienoes e life
! to guests, the hotels are permitted to be
opsn ON Sunday, An hold that il would
be violation Of the Law for . man 70
90 with groceries into hotel on Sunday
and attempt 70 sell them under the Gov
er of doing . hotel business. Il would
be wrong for hotel kssper to put in .
stock of groceries and attempt to sell
them, and % it would be just - much
| in contravention Of the Law for hotel
keeper to put in . stock Of cigars and
ell promiscuoualy 70 whoever might
come thers, and the same way with the
dru9stores. That i hotels, druNHtoces,
livery stables and undeetakesS must b
taken in THAR usual and restricted
sense in this pfoviso. And IN the open
| ing Of stock In any Of thsee places
that 10 NOT proper and peculiar TO them
on Sunday would b. = violation Of Law
TO my mind. That is my construction
Of il. and think every one of good
sense in reading the Law would hold the
same way.
Prosecuting Attorney Evans asked:
Would the guests of tho house b per-
mitted to purchase cigars or liquors ol
the proprietor?
| The Court said: / take is that any
thing supplied 10 the guests in the ordi
nary hotel keeping can Be lsgitimatsly
supplied to the guests under this law.
A Juror: ! want to know what u
considered Q guest? Would . person
going into the hotel and purchasing
liquors and cigars. would he not b Z
guest?
The Court: By that act he would moi
b. considered . guest He should b ,
psrson Who IL boarding a. lodging q
The hotel.