Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-07

fish. But it isn't. 1t belongs to the fami
y Oh radlates. No. Oysters and great
deal OF the animal life Of the sea are ont.
side the fish family"
linen the fried oysters which James f
talbot sold upon the Sabbath day in West
washington, were not in any respect fish?'
Come now," said the commissioner. II
have been talking from geological stand
point. don't know how Blackstone and
the statute book define fish, Go to 3
lawyer"
OYSTERS UNDER THE Law.
The reporter did SO. He went to Mr.
John Il. Develin, who as jurist and fisher.
man was fitted IN two fold way to decide
the vexed point. Mr.. Develin was treated
to an epitome of the case of the People VS.
James E. Talbot, and asked to state what
constituted fish under the law.
strictly speaking" said the lawyer, "ar
oyster is not fish any more than greer
turtle or terrapin, both of which come
out of the water, but have no relation il
zoology to the sea rovers of the ichthy
illogical order. In this case the law wa.
framed with the end of enabling people
who had failed to provide Sunday proven
der to get fresh fish in the morning
With that end the markets were allowed
to remain open for a time, anG
as drugs are necessary in case Of
sudden illness their sale was also ex
empted from prohibition. Now the cues
ton is, does an oyster fry sold in a restau
rant come under the head of fresh fish sold
In market, which is what the spirit of the
| law evidently intends? 1 am afraid il
| does not. But I wouldn't dare to state nv
opinion, lest would be held responsible
| for law-breaking time and again."
SO an oyster was not a fish under the
law, and there were the crackers or meaI
and lard besides, all of which might weigh
IN the balance against James E. Talbot
10 resolve all doubt about the inlquity OF
offering the oyster fry for Sabbath sale
the reporter sought out Messrs. Fisk 8
Robbins, who are wont to dispense
| such creature comforts On week
days only, and consequently would be un.
biased. Sam Robbins read resume OF
| the Talbot case and said he would be will
ing to give an opinion on the oyster frye
claim to the legal privileges of fresh fish
But first" he said, evidence must be pro-
duced touching the character of the fry in
point. If it only consisted of crackers and
lard with an oyster dressing it could not
honestly come under such head. But to
work. Where are the oysters Talbot
used?"
The reporter knew not their where
abouts.
where are the crackers and lard?"
They, too, could not be forthcoming.
Il must have the oysters and the crackers
and lard. Have you the ceok?"
Certainly not. He may be in Washing
lngton and he may be awaiting Judge
Smells decision in anxiety and doubt, and
also IN the person of the accused Talbot
himself'
without these evidences" said Robbins,
1T Is utterly impossible to decide what con-
stltuted the oyster fry and whether it was
fish, flesh or fowl. Restaurant keepers are
the honestest of Gods creatures, but cooks
are capricious and the oyster is sometimes
imposed on"
So the reporter went Off, feeling that af-
ter scientific, legal and gastronomic opin-
ion it still left with the West Washington
magistrate to decide the legal standing of
the oyster.