This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 edition. Excerpt: ... are cited upon this point. But we regard the principle as well settled and shall not indulge in further reference to authorities except to say that the recent case of In re Garfinklc, 37 Wash. 650, 80 Pac. 188, recognizes the validity of such an ordinance as applied to a restricted district in the city of Seattle. There is a question involved here, however, which we think sustains the court s judgment. Section 1 of the ordinance is as follows: N o person, firm, or corporation shall engage in, prosecute, or carry on the business of peddling fruits, vegetables, butter, eggs, etc., within the fire limits in the city of Spokane. The provisions of this section not to apply to farmers disposing of produce grown by themselves. It will be seen that farmers, when disposing of products which have been grown as the result of their own efforts, are exempted from the terms of the ordinance. The principle of discrimination presented by said provision was considered in State ea: rel. Luria '0. Wagener, 69 Minn. 206, 72 N. W. 67, 65 Am. St. 565, 38 L. R. A. 677. The court was considering a state statute which purported to license and regulate hawkers and peddlers throughout the state, but the act provided that it should not be construed to prevent any manufacturer, mechanic, nurseryman, farmer, butcher, fish or milk dealer, selling as the case may be, his manufactured articles or products of his nursery or farm, or his wares, as a fish or milk dealer or butcher, either by himself or employee. It was held that the classification by which the manufacturer or fanner was permitted to peddle his own products but which prohibited those who purchased his products from doing the same thing, rendered the statute unconstitutional...