The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1876-06-12

THE WATER QUESTION
AGAIN.

issue takes us TO task IN regard TO
some expressions in our article Of the
day before entitled "The Water Pro-
position." We have no exceptions
to take to any of the positions OF our
correspondent excepting only his al
firmation that there were errors IN
our statements. In his ostensible
enumeration, he did not clearly show
wherein they consist. Evidently
what he was pleased to characterize
as errors on our part were rather
misconstruction on his part Of what
We meant.
We were aware Of the two facts be
presents in the shape Of rebuttal
statements, and did not say anything
TO the contrary. The subject is not
really in proper shape for discussion
until il has been submitted 10 and
reported upon by engineers, and 1t
was not within the scope OF brief
tentative article to develop every
point in all its bearings Hence the
first of our statements TO which
, he adverts, perhaps, may require
some amplifcation. There is class
of property that is enjoyed by a
kind of prescriptivs right, instead of
an absolute one, by suffcrance and
not by title. Water by reason of
its quality Of mobility cannot in all
cases be classed as personal property,
rs will real estate. II is analogous
to the right of common or privilege
which is enjoyed by man whose
farm adjoins an unoccupied tract Of
public land, pasturing bis cattle
thereupon, yet it is still more inviola
BILE than the latter, and it has been
decided that owners who received
benefit from the presence or passage
of stream upon any part of its
course have a legal right to the per-
manency of that benefit.
From the separation Of the clauses
in the proposition respecting con-
domination of property and control
of all water sources within five miles
Of town. We are in doubt whether it
was contemplated, besides compcn-
sating the owners Of the spring
whose ground was condemned, TO
also remunerate all successive pro-
prietors from whose premises the is
suant stream might DO diverted. 1t
is conceded that the public cxigen-
cies may justify q usurpation of such
private privileges nothing short
of Il public exigency can do SO.
AS to the second RECEPTION, We
confess that we are In favor Of hav-
ing as soon as practicable, an exami-
nation and report made by engi-
neers upon the several plans that
have been proposed. All parties in
terested can then act intelligently
and harmoniously, and all chance
for dissatisfaction will then DO OBJ
waited.
If an expensive system must be
provided now, 1t is well to look a
little way ahead There is no suita-
BILE or adequate water source that
can In relied upon to supply our city
for twenty-five years to come, nearer
than Cedar river. except the lakes.
To so to the latter, though nearer,
would require pumping apparatus
and forcing up hill. Besides. there
is a preference whenever possible in
drawing our supplies from the
mountains above us, where il comes
pure and cold from the clou lis instead
of from reservoirs that lie below. Ten
or twelve years ago considerable
part Of the water supply Of San
Francisco was brought, in by way Of
the ocean beach and For, Point in a
wooden flume. For such n fiume 10
Cedar river, chief If not the prin-
eipal item of expense would BE- the
lumber. Fifteen miles Of box ilume
of four sides, each two feet wide
and two inches thick would require
l,273,6oo feet If lumber, which. at
$lO per NJ. would cost sl2, $50.
The items for trestisng and con-
structicn would depend upon the
estimates, but as there is good
fall from Cedar river and nearly
uniform Alignment hy way Of the
valley, they need no, b. exorbitan..