C3j
?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 !