The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-17

aths arose partially out Of his chair.
lock OF battle on his face
Yes .n ana IL Mr. oI Norris again. % ~
By this time both the constable and
Judge Cam were franticaliy calling for
order in the court Both attorneys s,o soo,eu
Finally Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Hart, who had been silent observer or
the spectacular performance up 10 tnis
time, made the proposition that the case
be tried with three jurors. This was as
scented to by the attorneys on the other
side, and the taking of testimony began.
The states Evidence.
w. II. Hazard, a member of the Anti
Saloon League, was the first witness he
testified that on July =. which was Sun
day, he went down to Dave Blakes sa-
Inou and found IL open. He stated that
ne went in at the front door and out at
the back door. -,
'.Did you see any one drinking in thereT
asked Mr.. Hart.
we object" chorused Messrs. Shipley
and Morris in unison. and there was a
long argument on the relevancy OF the
question. The attorneys for the defense
insisted that under the complaint, which
simply charged Blake with keeping his
place open on Sunday. any evidence tend
Ing 10 show that liquor was sold on the
day in question was irnmatertal to the Is
sues involved in the case. The state IN
sisted on its right to show the fact that
the place was open In Its ordinary course
object OF the question. Judge Cam. how
ever sustained the objection. and the de-
tense declined to cross-examine Mr.. Haz-
Zard.
A. E. Flagg and Henry Cowan, also
members of the Anti-Saloon League, testi-
fed to the fact that the saloon was open
on the Sunday In question, and the De-
Tense did not cross-examine them.
I'VE rest" announced Mr.. Hart.
so do we," came from the other side.
Aren't YOU going to offer any testi-
mony?' quersed the prosecutor In sur
Not a word" was the reply, and the
argument of the case commenced.
A Forensic battle.
Attorney Griffiths made the first argu-
ment. He read the law In the case, and
supplemented 1t by reading the recent de-
cision OF the supreme court, holding sec
penalty to keep saloon open on Sunday,
regardless of whether or not liquor Is
sold therein. to be valid. The burden OF
Mr. Grifiiths' argument was that the tes-
mony was plain and uncontradicted, and
If the jurors found a verdict other than
that of guilty" they would violate their
oaths.
Mr. Morris followed. He attacked the
validity of the Indictment. and claimed
that verdict of conviction could not be
rendered under it. He said the indict-
ment failed to state that the saloon OF
the defendant did not come under the ex-
ceptions allowed by the law. 1t was nee
essary, he asserted, to negative any pro-
yiso in a law in order for complaint to
be valid. Mr.. Morris read at great length
from authorities to substantiate his po-
sition. In closing he paid high tribute
to the public-spiritedness of the saloon
men, and denounced the members Of the
Anti-Saloon League as a small clique who
were trying to gain a little cheap noto-
riety and at the same time fatten their
pocketbooks."
Mr.. Shipley followed with legal argu-
ment In favor of acauittal but made no
reference to the testimony In the case.
Mr.. Hart closed with an earnest plea for
conviction.
1T makes no difference" ne declared.
whether you or I approve this law or
not / opposed the bringing OF these pros
ecutions, as is well known: but when they
come into this court have a sworn duty
to perform, and you, gentlemen of the
jury, also have a sworn duty which you
must perform. be II ever so unpleasant.
The testimony In this case is clear. The
law Is equally clear. The testimony es-
tablishes beyond doubt that the law has