The daily morning Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1883-1899, February 21, 1888, Image 3

Historic Oregon Newspapers

The daily morning Astorian., February 21, 1888, Image 3

Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR

About The daily morning Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1883-1899 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1888)

Prev Page of 4 Next Prev Issue Next Text PDF JP2 (4.0 MB) Clip/Print Image

Return to Top

Prev Page of 4 Next Prev Issue Next

Newspaper Page TextC3j ?hr flatty gsforiau. ASTORIA, OREGON: TUESDAY -FEBUUAKY2I.18SS ISSUED EVERY MORNING. (Monday excepted.) J. F. HAJiLOBAN & COMPANY, Publishers ana Proprietors, ASTOHIAX BUII.DI.VG, - Cass Street. Terms of Subscription. Servcl Iiv Carrier, per week- Sent liv Mall, per month... J onn vpnr ..-. 13 ets GOcts ST.OO Free of postage to subscribers. The AbToniAU guarantees to Its adver tisers the largest circulation of any newspa per published on the Columbia river. IS THE OIEOIIIT OOTJET, An Opinion From Judge Taylor. The Salmon Cases Referred Hack To The Grand Jury. The February term of tho circuit court for this county began yesterday morning, Judge F. J. Taylor oa the bench. Daring the interim since the last session tho court room has been hand somely renovated and refurnished. The sawdust and fleas Lave disap peared, tho old semi-circular table, the legacy from a former generation, has gone, and the chairs with raw hide strips in the seats thereof have also gono glimmering through the dreams of thing3 that were. Handsome paper covers tho wall; there is a decorated ceiling, cedar wainscoting, comfortable chairs for the jury, an elevated position for tho witness, better accommodation for tho comfort and convenience of the judge, the clerk and the lawyers, and amplo room for the spectators. The session began at 10 a. si: T. G. Boelling and 'W. 0. Logan wore ap pointed bailiffs; jury list called: ab sent, R. A. Abbott, E. D. O'Neil, F.N. Byrd, W. J. Loomis, J. N. Heckard, Jas. McCann. Following were ex cused for the term: E.D. O'Neil, Jas. McMullen, W.F. McGregor, Jno. En berg; excused till Wednesday: J. W. Maker; till Thursday, J. H. Lang worthy. Eva Wallman vs. Joseph. Brown, centinued: vs. George Smith, contin ued; J. II. Beddington vs. J. E. Thom as, et al., continued; C. H. Page vs. Astoria Coast T. Co., dismissed; W. E. Warren vs. F. H. Worsley, contin ued; Fleckenstein & Mayor vs. Ham son, continued; John Douglas vs. Ab bie A. Deuglas: order re-referred; Thompson & Boss vs. Wm. Beasley: set for trial; L W. Cas8 vs. Wm. Kyle, continued; G. W. Nutter vs. B. Gal lagher: demurrer overruled by con sent; Clatsop Mill Co. vs. W. E. War ren: settled and dismissed; Chas. Korpela, et al., vs. Bell, et al.: demur rer overruled by censent: till to-morrow to answer; A- C. Fisher vs. John Kepp: same; City of Astoria vs. J. W. Babbage: for trial; Klosterman & Co. vs. L. Dragovitch; State vs. Thomas Scetchler: demurrer sustained and rc referred to the grand jury. (This case attracts considerable at tention and applies to tho cases of Thos. Scotchler, George & Barker and M. Herrick.) Following is th8 full text of judge taylor's orrxiox. In the Circuit court of the state of Ore gon for the county of Clatsop. The State of Oregon, plaintiff, vs. Thomas Scotohler, defendant. On the 2Gth day of September, 1837, the defendant was indicted by the grand jury of this county, charged with the crime of purchasing salmon, knowing the same to nave been unlawfully caught in the Co lumbia river. The specific acts by which the defendant is charged to have com mitted tho crime, are set forth in the in dictment in the following language: "The said Thomas Scotchler on the 22d day of September, A. D. 1887, in the county of Clatsop and state of Oregon, did willfully, knowingly and unlawfully, purchase ana nave in ma possession eighty salmon, he then and there well knowing that said salmon had been un lawfully caught and taken in the Colum bia river, In said state and county in the month of September, 1837, the price paid for said salmon, and the party from whom the same were purchased, being to this grand jury unknown, contrary to the statutes, &a." To this indictment tho defendant in terposed a general demurrer, that the in dictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime, and, upon the argu ment, counsel for defendant urged tho following objections to the indictment, to-wit: First That the subjects of the act un der which this indictment is found are not clearly set forth and expressed in the title, and that therefore, the act does not conform to the requirements of Section 20 of Article TV of the State Constitution. Second That the act is in confliot with Section 1G of the Bill of Rights, in this, that the fines provided for in the act are exceasivA. Third That the act is in violation of Section 23 of Article IV of the Constitu tion, for the reason that it is a locallaw, passed for the pnnishment of misde meanors, and Fourth That the jurisdiction of tho State of Oregon, over the waters of the Columbia river, extends only to the mid dle thereof, and that any act on tho part of the Stato to regulate tho fisheries of said river beyond that limit is void. Furthermore that even though the juris diction of the Stato extended to the Washington Territory shore, the south bank of the Columbia river is the north ern boundary of this county, and the ex tent of the jurisdiction of this court. The act of the legislature under whicu this indictment is found was passed in 1878 (see Session Laws 1878, page 12), and the title of tho act roads a3 follews: "An act regulating salmon fisheries in the waters of the Columbia river and its tributaries." The first section of the act makes it unlawful to tako, or fish for salmon in the Columbia river, or its tributaries, during the months of March, AnmiKt or SpntAmhar nf each vear, or be tween the hours of six o'clock in the afternoon of each and every Saturday, and six o'clock of tho afternoon of tho following Sunday, during the months of April, May, June and July, or for any person to purcaase salmon so nnuuiuiij caught, and provides, that any person violating tho provisions of said section, upon conviction thereof shall, for the first offense be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, and for each and every subse quent offense shall upon conviction there- oi ue nneu not less tnan one muuauuu dollars, to which may be added, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment in tho county jail for a term not exceeding one year. The second section regulates the size of meshes for gill nots and seines and the manner of constructing weir or fish trap-?, and provides a penalty for tho violation of such regulations. Section three provides that tho in former against violators of the provisions of this act shall receive one-half tho fine recovered, and make3 it a misdemeanor ior any prosecuting attornoy to fail to prosecute tho party accused, upon com plaint being made to him of the violation oi meact. Section four provides that tho act shall not be so construed as to interfere with any establishment or enterprise for the propagation of salmon. Section five makes it unlawful for the proprietor of am saw mill nn tho Colum bia river or any of its tributaries, or any employe therein to cast, or permit to be can, the sawdust from said mill into said river or its tributaries, below the Cascades of the Columbia river, and the falls of the "Willamette river, nnd pro vides a penalty for a violation of the provisions of that section. Section six provides for the imprison ment of a party convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of the act, in de fault of his paying the fine imposed, and further that all line3 nnd penalties col lected for violations of the act shall con stitute a fund for the maintenance of hatching honse3. for the propagation of salmon, and bo disbursed in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled An act to encourage the establishment of hatching houses for the propagation of salmon in tho waters of the Columbia river," and Section seven provides that all lines imposed by the act shall be enforced and collected as other fines and for jurisdic tion of courts to enforce the fines. Section 20 of Articlo 4 of the Slate Constitution under which tho first ob jection to the indictment is urged reads as follews: Section 20. "Every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. Hut. if any subject shall bo embraced in an act which shall not bo expressed in the title, such act shall be void, only, as to so much thereof ns shall not be expressed in tho title." Defendant contends that the s-a!jject matter of prohibiting the purchasing of salmon caught contrary to tho provis ions of tho act of 1878 is not expressed in the title of tho act and that therefore the act, so far ns it relates to that subject matter is void, nnd further that section six of the act undertakes to prouds for tho disposal of fines collected for viola tion of the act in accordance with tho provisions of an act entitled "An .ict to encourage tho establishment of hatching houses for the propagation of salmon in tho waters of the Columbia river" which latter act it is claimed is void, and that consequently tho net under consideration is void, ns a whole. The rnlo that a portion only of an act being void will not invalidate the re maining portions, provided they can bo construed nnd given effect withont refer ence to that portion which is void, is too well established to admit of argument at this time, whatever disposition might be made, of the fines, could it no way affect the other provisions of tho act. The titlo of the act in question is very broad in its terms, being "An act regu lating salmon fisheries in the waters of the Columbia river and its tributaries" which in its general import includes eyery regulation which might bo neces sary to protect those fisheries from in jury or destruction. The object of tho constitutional provision, is to prevent matter wholly foreign, and disconnected from tho subject expressed in the title from being inserted in the not, nnd it is sufficient if the subject matter of tho act be expressed in the title in very general terms. Simpson vs. Bailey, 3 Oregon. 515. Washburn vs. County of Shaicnce, (Kan.) 13 Pacific Reporter. Ex parte Kohlcr, on Habeus Corpus, (Cal.) 15 Pacific lleporter, 4;!G. Dallas vs. Ttcdman, (Col.) 15 Pacific Reporter, S97. State ex rel Coffin vs. County Comr's, (Nov.) 10 Pacifio Kept. 0U2. If the construction contended for by defendant were to prevail, it would ne cessitate the title being nearly as long ns the net itself and the purpose of the pro vision of the constitution defeated by the rule. The second objection urged against the indictment is that the fines provided therein are excessive, nnd might at first thought seem to have some merit in it. It was argued that if a person bo con victed of violating tho provisions of this law bv catchins or nurchasinc one salmon of a value not to exceed one dollar he will bs subjected to a fine of not less than tiro hundred dollars, which it is claimed is excessive for tho commission of so slight an offense. But if we take into consideration tho magnitude of the fishing industry on the Columbia river, the Great danger of its total destruction, unless properly rotated and protected; tue caso wun wuicu jaws ior us protec tion may bo violnted, and tho of fender go undetected, all of which are matters of common notoriety, and the fact that an offender against these laws commits the offense, not through ignor ance, but wilfully and knowingly for tho purpose of gain, nil theso justify tho im position of a severo penalty. Tho third objection urged against the indictment, is that the act is unconstitu tional in that itisn local law for the punishment of a misdemeanor. Section 23 of Articlo 4 of tho State Constitution which is claimed tho act violates reads as follews: Section 23. Tho Legislative assembly shall not pass special or local laws in any of the following cases, that is to say: 1. Herniating tuo jurisdiction and duties of justices of tho peace and of constables. 2. For the punishment of enmos and misdemeanors. It is contended that as this act applies only to the waters of the Columbia river and its tributaries it is local, and conse quently in conflict with the nbovo pro visions of the Constitution. And in sup port of their position counsel havo cited a number of authorities which I propose to review briefly. In tho case of Manning vs. Klpplc, 9 Oreson. 307, the Supreme court held that nn act passed by tho legislature in Octo ber, 1880, and which provided that tho clerks nnd sheriffs of fourteen counties of the state should receive annual sal aries, and establishing a table of fees for services performed by said officers for their respective, counties, different from those of other counties of tho state, and providing that said fees should bo col lected by tho said sheriffs and clerks of the counties mentioned in tho net and paid over to the said counties, was a local taw for the asseasment and col lection of taxes for county purposes, be cause it applied only to thoso certain counties and in.no way affected or inter ested other localities. In tho case of The People vs. Allen, 42 N. Y.. 378. the court hold that an aD- propriation to improve the Bogtiet river was an appropriation for a local purpose because as they say, "Its name is not found on any of the general map3 of the state, it is net found in nnv General his tory of the country, and its character is innuwuy ucuucu iu uiij juuim biuiuiu, And it U not of such public notoriety, as to be generally known to tho people of the state, and henco the courts can take no moro notice of its character and ex istence than of the character, location and usefulness of the ordinary highways oi tne stato. in tnis respect, u. is umiiku the great rivers and lakes of the state, and the mountain ranges which are matters of general history and publio notoriety." The court further says: "This is cnliko any of the improve ments of the Hudson river. That is a river, navigablo for about one hundred and fifty miles, forming a link in the chain of water communication between the ocean and the great lakes. It acts nn important part;in the commerce of tho whole stato, and tho citizens of the state, generally, are interested in its navigation. An improvement made in its navigation at any point would not be mainly or materially, for the beaefit of the people living at or near that point, but would bo for the benefit of the entiro commerce of that great river, and of tho commerce of the wholo state." In tho case of The People vs. Super visors of Chautauqua, 43 N. Y., 10, where a clause in the general aot of the legislature, "making appropriations for certain expenses of government, and for supplying deficiencies in former appro priations," appropriating from the state treasury tho sum of $10,000 for the con struction of a bridca over the Cattarau gus creek at n particular locality under ioe direction oi cerium cuiuiui&siuuers, named, and. farther providing, that the supervisors of tho counties of Erio and Uhautauqua should assess upon tneir respective counties a moiety of such further sum, not exceeding 10,000 as the said commissioners should certify to be necessary for the completion of the bridge, the court held that the latter pro vision was unconstitutional and void, for the reason among others that it was local. The court say, "tho provision bears upon tho taxable property of a certain marked oat locality, tho separ ated taxpayers of that locality and no portion of tho stato outside the lines of those counties." Iu the caso of Earle vs. the Board of Education of San Francisco, 55 Cal., 489, tho court held that an act entitled An act to add a new section to tno political code to be known as section 1018. relatine to salaries of school teach ers in cities having 100,000 inhabitants or more, pnu which established the salaries to be paid to the teachers in tho public 6c'uools "in all consolidated cities and counties containing moro than 100,000 in habitants, was a local law providing for tho management of the common schools, and in conflict with the State Constitu tion, which prohibits the passage of local laws for tho management of the common schools. It will bo observed that in each of the above cases, tho law which was adjudged loc il, applied only to a csrtain locality, and was of no interest to tho people of the state at large. No locality, other than that mentioned in the act, was in terested to any considerable oxtont in the subject matter of tho act. The law nffected only the inhabitants of particu lar districts. Tho law under consideration in this cise undertakes to regulate public fish eries, and while it makes it unlawful to catch or fish for salmon, only in the waters of the Columbia river and its tributaries, in its operation it affects tho inhabitants of the wholo state. To say that those people onlv who are inhabitants of tho counties in tho imme diate vicinity of, or bordering upon those waters aro interested in tho refutation and protection of tho fishing industry carried on upon the Columbia river, nn industry which produces and distributes each year among the people of this state, not only thousands but hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be, to say the least, taking a very narrow view of the subject. In tho caso of Allen vs. Ilirsch, 3 Oregon, 412, was a caso involving tho same principal under consideration here. The Supreme court held in that caso that "An act to provide for the construc tion of a road in Grant and Baker counties, to be known ns tho Eastern Oregon and Winncmuccn Koad," and "An act to provide for the construction of a wagon road up the south bank of the Columbia river from near the mouih of Sand-, in Multnomah county, t-j '"h Dalles in Wasco county," wero not in conflict with that clause of tho Constitu tion which forbids the legislative assem bly passing special or local laws, for lay ing out. opening and working on high ways, That they wero public, and not special or local laws, within the meaning of the Constitution, because, whilo the roads in question were built in cortain fixed localities, and might be moro con venient to those localities than to others, nevertheless thoy wero built for the use and convenience of the public, to facili tate travel between different sections of the State, separated by extensive moun tain ranges, and were a benefit to tho whole State, and therefore, in their nature, genera!. Sa far as I have been nblo to ascertain, wherever a question involving this principle has arisen in tho courts o the dmarent btates, it has re ceived an interpretation in accord with that given by our own Supremo court in the above case. In tho case of Hayes etui vt. Terri tory, 5 Pacifio Reporter, 927, the Supreme court of Washington Territory held that a law which nlaccd restrictions noon hunting in certain specified counties of the territory was not special or loan but general, for they say, "its provisions fall without distinction upon all inhabi tants of the territory." As early as tho year 1809 tho courts of Mnssachnsets passod upon a statute almost identical in its nature with the ono under considera tion, and held it to bs a public statute The net iu that caso was entitled "An act for the preservation of fish called buss in Dunston river in ScarZiorougi in the county of Cumberland" and the court in passing upon tho question say: "Wo aro of opinion that the stntute re ferred to is a public statute. It is obli gatory on all the citizens, and they must notice it at their peril. Wo must there fore, cx-officlo, take notice of it. Indeed all the laws regulating the tnking of fish are mado for the public benefit, to pre Borvo the fish, nnd are publio statutes." Burnhum vS. Webster, 5 Mass. 2G5. In tho case of Pierce V3. Kimball, 23 Amor. Decis.. 537, the Supreme court of Maine held that nn act entitled "An act regulating the survey of lumber in the county of Penobscot'1 nnd which act made it unlawful for anv person to sell lumber manufactured in said county, unresa the same had been taken account of, or surveyed by tho Surveyor General or one of Ui3 deputies; or for any person other than tho Surveyor General or his deputies to surrey lumber therein, was not a soeclal or local law. but a acncral law, and cites with approval the case of Burnlutm vs. Webster, supra, thns maintaining tho doctrine, that while a statute may be local with respect to its violation, it is, nevertheless, public if it is binding upon all persons coming or be ing within the particular locality. The fourth objection made by counsel for defendant raises the question of the extent of jurisdiction of this state and oounty over the waters of tho Columbia river, where tho same forms a common boundary between this stato nnd the ter ritory of Washington. The act of congress admitting the state into the Union provides (Hill's Codo, pagel21, Sec 1) that itsnortbem bound ary shall commence at a point one marine league "duo west and opposite the mid- dlo Of the north ShiD ehnnnnl nf th Columbia river; thence easterly to and J up iuu iiiiuuiu uuuuuei oi said river ..., 3 . including juris diction iu ciniuuu criminal cases upon tue Luiumuia river " concurrently with statesjand territories of which those rivers form a boundary in common with this state," and again in section 2 of the same aot, "Tho said Stato of Oregon shall have concurrent jurisdiction on tne Columbia and all other rivers and waters bordering on tho said State of Oregon so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said state, and any other state or states now, or hereafter to bo formed or bounded by tho same." In support of tho objection it is urged that the middle of the Columbia river is the northern boundary of the state, and that the giving of concurrent jurisdiction over said river, to the state, only carried withit the right to make arrests in criminal cases, or to servo summons and other process in civil cases, where the crime chareed was commlttnd. or tho cause of action sued upon, arose south of oi mat line. In civinc this State concurrent inris- diction with Washington territory, over iuo uuuuioiLi xiver, congress must nave had some purpose in view, and it seems to me the purpose was to prevent the ques tion of jurisdiction arising between tho two sovereignties, and in the courts thereof. If the construction contended for by counsel for the defendant were to prevail, and a crime waB committed, or a civil cause of action arose, at a point very near the middle of the Columbia river, it would be almost, if not quite, impossible to determine whether juris diction of tho case, belonged to this ntntn or to Washington territory. By giving luis btutu concurrent jurisdiction with Washington territory over the waters of tho Columbia river, congress, for all pur poses in civil and criminal cases, made the northern boundary of said river tho northern boundary of "the state. Under this view of tho case it is unnecessary to determine the question of the bonndnrv. or extent of jurisdiction of this county. ii tno saimon cnargea to nave been pur chased wore caught in the Columbia river, where the samo is a common bound ary between this state and Washington territory, they were unlawfully caught, and tho indictment charges that they were purchased in this county and state. This disposes of all the objections urged upon the argument, but there is another objection to tho indictment, one which I consider a valid objection, and which is covered by tho general demurrer. The indictment charges that the salmon were purchased by defendant, he "well knowing that said salmon had been caught and taken in the Columbia river" but there i3 nowhere any allegation that they were so caught or taken. This I consider a material and necessary allegation, and tho leaving of it out, was evidently an oversight on the part of tho district attorney, in prepar ing tho indiotment, and, may in nil probability bo avoided in a new indict ment. I think the demurrer should be sustained upon this proposition and tho case re-submitted to the grand jury. w a irinrT. n:-.- : . the state. Stott, Waldo, Smith, Slott& Boise and Fulton Bros., for defendant. Geo. W. Hurno vs. A.M. Johnsen: order for confirmation of sale; Wiley liolman, ct a!., vs. Thos. Mqnteith, ct ill.; order for confirmation of sale, and order, nunc pro tun;, to al low sheriff to file his return. Adjourned to 130 p. m. Upon reassembling for the after noon session the following grand jury were drawn: B. Gallagher, P. F. Bower, Wm. E. Jopliu, H. E. Nelson, W. J. Loomis, J. O. Davis, E. L. Mitchell: sworn, B. Gallagher, fore man. Autou Huber, Alex. Ohls, Leauder Anderson, Unas. Horpela and John Tianbara admitted to citizenship; jury excused till 9:30 a. M. to-day. Wm. Locb vs. Fire Ins. Association, limited: argued and submitted; ad j iiirned. Tho endorsement of German Snrttp is unparalelled. We will pub lish 1000 testimonials received during tho last six months. Head them. May save your life. BnniiixaHA5i, N, Y., May 31,'8G. G. G. Greek, Dear sir: I am fre quently troubled with severe colds, and the only remedy that will relieve mo of them is your Jioschee's German Syrup. I have used it for more than 12 years. It is n constant household companion with me. Our merchant here procured it first at my solicita tion, nnd says he has sold a great many bottles. It is a very popular remedy in this section. Eveiy per son who has used it speaks in the highest terms of its merits. I do not know of a single case it has not cured. I first used it in Vermont, where I lived before cominghere. I advise everyone to use it, as it is cer tainly tho best cough medicine I have ever kuown. I havo tried nearly all of them nt different times. Yours respectfully, MOSES GRAY, Proprietor Grist Mill. A. F. nn.l A. 51. Special Notice. Stated communication of Temple lodge No. 7 this evening at Masonic hall. Every member and every so journing brother master mason is requested to attend, itie u. w. Grand lecturer, Bro. G. W. Strond will bo present to exemplify the work. I5v order of tho W .M. E. C. Holden Secy. Watch Found. Owner can have same by calling on 51. 11. Bozorth, at O. K.&N.tickot office. At Thompson fc Itoss'. If you want something in tho line of canned vegetables better than the or dinary brandy, fry the Dewilrop, sold livThnmnson & R.OSS. Also canned corn on the cob. and swt-et potatoes, pronounced a uencacy of tho season. OurJioast Coffees are excellent; try them. Our Hams give tho very best salts- fnptinn. We have Tickled licet and Sheep Tongues. Pigs' Feet. etc. Our Salt JIackcrel, Herring, Tongues and Sounds, and Salmon is Iso. 1. Our IJoclc Candy Drips, Strained Honey, and honey in the comb are tip top. If you want something nice for break fast try our Flake Petri Wheat. Thompson & ltos?. Tiviucs, Twines, Twines. .1. 0. Ilanthorn Is agent for Dunbar, MacMasters & Co.'s salmon twines on tho Columbia river, and Ruarantees to satisfy the trade in prices amVquality equal to any on the market. ts AT All our Ladies', Misses and In order to make room for large Spring purchases to arrive shortly. leading -THE- DIAMOND PALACE! GUSTAV HAJiSEJf, I'rop'r. A Large and Well Selected Stock of Fine Diamonfls s Jewelry At Extremely Low Prices. All Goods Uought at This Establlbliraent Warranted Genuine. Watch nmi Clock Repairing A SPECIALTY. Corner Cass and Squemoqua Streets. Oarnahan & Co. SUCCESSORS TO I. "W. CASE, . IliroUTKIH AND WHOLESALE ANI1 KETAIL DEALEItS IX GENERAL MERCHANDISE, Comer Clu'iiamiw and Cass streets. ASTCKIA OUEfiOX BOOTS MB SHOES! Of Best Quality, and at LOWEST PRICES, AT THE SIGH OF THEJOLDEH SHOE. MURRAY & CO., GROCERS And Dealers In Special Attention Clvonto Filling Of Orders. A FULL LINE CARRIED Anil Supplies furnished at Satis factory Terms. Purchases delivered In any part of the city. Office and Warehouse Iu nnme's New Building on "Water Street. P. O. Box 153. Telephone No. 37. ASTORIA. OREGON. G. A. STMSON & CO., 8LACKSM1THING, U Capt. Rogers old stand, corner of Cass and Court Streets. Ship &nd Cannery work. Horseshoelnc. Wagons made and repaired. Good work guaranteed. Cannery Sillies! FRESH GROCERIES Al PROVISIONS Promptly Delivered AT LOWEST PRICES IN ANY PART OF THE CITY. Fruits and Vegetables In Season. Everything Warranted as Represented. Corner Chenamusand Benton Streets. Before starting in to make improvements I will sell PAIRS OF ODD PANTS AT $1.50, $200, $2.50, $3.25, $4.00 Respectively Regular price for tho same goods is $2.00, 2.50, $3.50, $4.50, $5.00 Gail Early and Secure the Right Size. Everything else in stock now will be sold at THE RELIABLE CLOTHIER AND HATTER. Occident Hotel Building. I Children's Astoria. Xaw Figures !