St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-11-14
over only the cost of the police and health

One Farnsworth, grocer, doing business
upon Robert street as 4 grocer and selling
vegetables, etc, however. refused to pay his
license; a complaint was made against him
in the Municipal Court; he was tried. con-
yicted and fined. The case was carried 70
the Supreme Court BY writ Of certorari, and
reversed. The law under which the ordi-
nance was framed (Sec. 10, chapter
90, Special Laws OF 1851 Is as follows:
The Common Council OF the City of St. Paul,
shall have authority TO erect and maintain
market houses, established market places, 70
restrain aud prohibit during market hours,
the sale at any other places than the public
market, or market place, meats, poultry,
wild game, fruits or vegetables or other arti-
cles except by regular licensed dealers. and
BY them only at their regular places Of busi-
ness aud for which place they shall have a
license, and TO restrain and 10 prohibit the
purchase BY any grocer or other dealers in
vegetables, poultry or other provisions, any
meats, poultry, wild game, fruits, berries, veg
etables or any other article in any public mar
ket OF market place, during market houIs
except for the use of his or her own family,
provided. however, that nothing in this sec
ton shall be construed 10 prohibit the sale OF
vegetables, country produce or poultry, upon
the public streets, lane or alleys after the
hour Of twelve t12) o'clock noon Of each day.
In the ordinance under which the proceed
ings were had in the case OF Farnsworth, no
reference was made to market hours, the ordi-
nance prohibited the sale OF vegetables,
fruit, poultry, etc, at any other place than
the market house, without first obtaining IL
eense, etc. The supreme court in
its decision IN that case said
The act recited only authorizes a restraint
or prohibition 10 be imposed upon unlicensed
vendors during market hours. The prohibit
ton of the ordinance is unqualified
IN respect 10 time. Under this
legislative power there could be
no pTohibitory ordinance so long Is there
was no designation by the proper action OF
the municipal authorities OF market hours,
TO which time only can the restraint be lin
lied such designation is 4 necessary part
OF any legislative action OF the Com
mon Council by which penal consequences
may DC sought TO be attached TO such an oc-
eupation. The occupation is lawful, until
by ordinance ha7ing the force OF statute law,
and containing every provision necessary to
define the prohibition, it is made unlawful.
The mere act OF selling farm products with
out license, at place within the city other
than the public market, and without regard
10 the time Of making such sale. could not
be made criminal by any ordinance in view
of the Limitation expressed in the legislative
act Yet that Is all that is alleged against
the relatOr. There is no natural period OF
time known as market hours; and 1t neither
appears that any such period has been in any
manner established or designated, nor, IN
such is the fact, is 1t alleged that the sale
complained Of was made during that time"
The law department of the City upon being
advised of the decision of the Supreme
Court, in the ''Farnsworth case,'' prepared
aud submitted 10 the Common Council a
draft Of an ordinance to correct the mistake,
which ordinance, being ordinance No. 43O,
passed the Common Council, and became
operative on the Sth day of August 1884,
since the passage Of said ordinance, all per-
sons dealing In vegetables, have been re-
quired to pay license, just as was done un-
der ordinance No. 1893. The mistake Of the
petitioners grew out of the fact, that the
newspapers of the City in commenting upon
the decision Of the Supreme court In the
"FaruswOrth case, '.said: That the decision
was based upon the ground, that the Com
mon Council had no Legislative authority TO
pass an ordinance, licensing vegetable deal
ers dc, when in fact it had full power To
pass proper ordinance. in the passage of
ordinance No. 1893, the Common Council
made II too broad in its terms.
AS the payment by the grocers were vol
untary under the ordinance held invalid, the
petitioners have no cause of action against
the City. II the Common Council should
order return of the money paid by veget-
able dealers, they would at once be required
to take out new license.
Under ordinance No. 40, as Mr. Nugent,
the collector OF licenses, has been instructed
to treat all grocers and others, who have
81.
as duly licensed, / am unable to see why
there should be any cause of complaint upon
the part of the petitioners.
l therefore advise against the return of the
money paid for vegetable license under or
dinance No. 1888. Very respectfully,
w. p. MURRAY, City Attorney.
October 90, 1854.
REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES.
OF Aid. Van Slyke-De Soto street widen
ing
Committee return the report Of the Board
of Public Works relative to widening said
street, together with an additional petition
for the improvement.
Board Of Public Works.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Claim presented:-C. Henmeyer 81. so,
Kenney & Hudner 1865, Joseph
Spiel s23 As, Americsn Shelf & Drawer com
pany S207, Pioneer Press company ISL, John
II. Shea 1896 The Day $50, j. Bruggemaun
SO, ID. f. Getehell SO, j. B. Confer 1925
j. b. Morehead 81. so, John Clancy $40, Geo.
Rochat s1.25. st. Paul Dispatch s24, Justus
Kahlert 81 %, St. Paul Gas Light company
$1,S77.S0, Quinby IL Abbott $50, House OF
Good Shepherd 500 OF, John Matheis $3.50
Ward, Hill & Mcclellan Ss.65, Mccarthy &
Donnelly 1865, ST. Paul Book & Stationery
company S6.47, c. c. Miles S15.55, John
Dowlan 1915, Ii. E. Wedelstaed $3.50, Board
Of Water Commissioners Si3. 10, Daily Globe
So, 1890, Robert Seeger 81, 242. ca. claim Of
Judges of Election 81, $3.50, claim for use of
rooms TO hold election S104; Daily Globe,
81, Os6.10. Committee on claims with ex-
ception of claims of judges and clerks and
use Of rooms to hold election which were
allowed aud referred to Comptroller by the
following vote:
Yeas-Ald. Cummings, Dowlan, OiConnor,
Robert, Cullen, Otis, Cornish, johnson, Van
Slyke, Starkey, st. Peter, Mr.. President-I2.
Ordinances
An ordinance was read entitled an orii-
nance granting permission to H. c. Schur-
meier TO erect an ice skating rink.
On motion the rules were so far suspended
as to allow said ordinance 10 pass to its sec
ond reading.
Yeas-10.
Nsys-Ald. Otis, Starkey-2.
The said ordinance was thereupon read a
second time and passed-(See ordinance No.
1872.
An ordinance was read entitled an ordi-
nance naming certain tract Of land Missis-
sippi street.
On motion the rules were so far suspended
as to allow said ordinance to pass to its second
reading, by the following vote:
Yeas-Ald. Cummings, Dowlan, O'Connor,