Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-13
NO MORE EXCURSIONS
Upon the Allegheny County Rivers
on the First Day of the Week.
JUDGE EWING'S STRONG 0PINIOl
Leaves Not One Loophole for the Summer
Pleasure.
DECISION IN THE MAYFLOWER CASE

VIM. Yost against the various people whit
have persisted in doing Sunday work proved
the charm yesterday, he finally succeedin!
in getting knock-down decision and opin
ion in his favor from Judge Ewing, th,
present case being finally gotten fairly ant
squarely before the court in all its latitude
and longitude.
Mr.. Yost's brief wasn't brief in this case, oc
cupying seven pages of typewriter manu-
script, but the material points will bt
found below. He says that the defendant
would rely largely on the issue of the case
against Reno, decided by Judge Slagle fol
the defendant in 1888. There were some
thing like 90 cases dependant on that one
Captain L. N. Clark was convicted and i'm
prisoned for selling liquor on the boat or
Sunday, and several other boats were pros.
ecuted for running Sunday excursions tc
McKee's Rocks. While holding that the
regular daily packets to CHARTERS might be
held accountable for doing unnecessary
Sunday work, Mr. Yost in the present case
points out that the Mayflower only run on
pleasure excursions, which could not be
held to be necessary employment. The
character of the McKee's Rocks picnics was
painted in crimson colors.
The Rights of Ferry Boats.
As to the right to operate ferry on Sun
day, Mr.. Yost held that boat plying be-
tween Pittsburg and Wheeling might, with
as much propriety, be called ferry boat
as one carrying Sunday excursionists to
| McKee's Rocks. Allowing the term 'ferry-
man" the widest possible meaning, the
statute only exempts ''ferrymen carrying
over water travellers or persons removing
with their families. Citations were made
from decisions to show that travellers ex-
curting on Sunday is not travelling within
the meaning of the law, and it is doubtful
if travelling were mans ordinary employ
ment he would be within the meaning
of the statute, as the exemption clause
mentions travellers, sojourners, strangers
and persons removing with their families,
all of which terms indicate absence from vo-
cation as we'll as from home, A person may
lawfully travel on Sunday in his own or a
hired equipage, while the running of pub
lie conveyance is prohibited by law.
Mr.. Yost held that the trainers of the act
of 1894 considered that travellers went in
private conveyances and consequently fer
~ men were allowed to carry them over the
water. Watermen are allowed to complete
trip, but not to begin one; they may not
take on passengers, but may land them. On
the subject of jurisdiction of the court, the
case of Captain Clark was cited to show that
United States licenses to sell liquor and
run boat did not exempt him from penalty
provided by State law, and finally, that en-
ployes hired by the month are not screened
from punishment for Sunday work, as a con-
tract cannot bind them to commit an act
that is forbidden under penalty.
The following is Judge Ewing's decision
and opinion:
Appeals From an Alderman's Decision.
The above cases are all appeals from the
judgments of Alderman Rohe, adtudging
each Of the defendants guilty of performing
the county of Allegheny on Sunday, May "a,
and on Sunday, July 5, 1891. These eight ap-
peals were heard and argued together.
Mayfower is licensed by the United States
Custom house officers to carry passengers
ETC., on the Monongahela and Ohio rivers
for the year beginning May 81, 1891: that
Thomas NJ. Rees and Frank A. Bailey are
the managers of said boat, directing and
managing their business; that Auschutz is
captain of the boat; that Nipple was mate
and Donovan engineer Of the boat, and that
each of said defendants were employed in
their respective capacities on the days in
The boat seems to have been run in the
summer of 1891 as an excursion boat. at
times on the Monongahela above Pittsburg,
and at other times on the Monongahela and
Ohio below Pittsburg. 1t had no regular or
stated times for any particular excursions
or trips.
On the Sunday in question, this boat
burg wharf, near Wood street crossing
to Allegheny, running down to
Mckee's Rocks, about three miles.
several miles, when it turned without land
ing and returned making the same landings
as on the down trip. Refreshments were on
beard and sold to PASSENGERS as desired.
taken on at Pittsburg wharf, delivering no
their round trip tickets on going aboard,
and never leaving the boat until its return
to the same terminal point The round trip
ticket cost 25 cents, and there were 200 to 800
passengers. The trip on the 24th of May oc-
cupied 21& to 8 hours and that of the 5th of
July, 5 to 81 hours.
None OF the Passengers Travellers.
The beginning and end of each trip being
within the county of Allegheny, it does not
appear that any of the passengers were
travellers: The few passengers who left the
boat at Mckee's Rocks got on again on the
upward trip. The defendants, Anschutz,
Nipple and Donovan, were employed and
paid by the month by the owners Of the
boat.
The act of the 22d Of April, 1894, so far as it
affects these cases is: "1f any person shall
do OF perform any worldly employment or
commonly called Sunday (works of necessity
and charity excepted), and be convicted
thereof, every such person so offending shall
for every such offence forfeit and pay 81
(by the act of Goth of April. 1856. ss5 in Allie
gheny county, provided that nothing |
herein contained shall be construed |
to hinder watermen from landing
carrying over the water, travellers or per-
sons removing with their families on the |
Lords day."
Do these cases come within any of the ex- |
ceptions? There is no evidence to raise q |
suspicion that the running of this boat on |
the days in question was work of necessity |
or mercy. The term "watermen" as used in |
PENDANTS. But the act of Assembly makes |
the exceptions in their favor only. from |
landing their passengers" 1t is the evident |
intention to permit the conclusion of a |
not otherwise permit the carrying on OF |
their ordinary business by watermen as on |
week days. They can complete their journey |
already begun and can land their passengers |
on Sunday.
A Question Of Definition.
Are the defendants ferrymenf Webster |
defines as follows: "Ferry-A place where |
persons or things are carried across a river |
or other water in ferry boats."" Ferryman-
sengers over a river" Ferry Boat-A boat |
for conveying passengers over streams and |
other narrow waters.h This is certainly the |
popular common understanding of the |
terms and is the sense in which the term |
"ferrymen" is used in the proviso to the act |
of Assembly. The business of ferrymen ex-
empted from the penalty of the act is that |
of carrying over the water, travellers or |
persons removing with their families" and |
these are not travelling by public convey
ance, but in their own cOnveyances.
These cases are not ruled by Common
wealth VS.. Reno, So Pitts, L. j., p. 7s; The