Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-08-09
..yeg LEaRY MISTAKEN.



I,.onc the many wise and practical
,..omnendations and suggestions con-
..,,ad in Mayor Leary's message, | find
.a.tsment in relation to the cemetery
IA mark which ! think deserves some
,stention. The honorable Mayor has
.,idsnsly made mistake. The mistake
- accustomed, no doubt, from lack
:, tuIl information in relation TO the
,,o.ssdipcs to convert the Seattle cem-
.,s,v into q park. After reciting the
,.,, that D. T. Denny. by deed dated
ms,N. 1865, conveyed to the city for
sss,a,srv purposes fve-acre tract of
I.nd and that afterward the Council. by
s.d;nance No. 36, attempted to dedicate
sra set apart this tract OF land as a
ssr.stsrv. and alleging that said ordin-
ana contained defective descrip51ous
he says:
aThis mistake is perpetuated by or
a,pauoe No. b7l, which uHdertakes 70
Ssd;este the same and other lands - q
rchi;c mark. and OF ceoasethe ord50anes
4 this respect is inoperauye. Qrdin-
srcs No. b7i also repeals specifically or
Sinanoe No. Sc and all other and parts
~ ordinances inconsistent with y. ana
IN 40 doing abolishes the p .vef ~ the
Council to appoint city sexon. a.o tne
nover by which cemeters recofo9 hrt
created and preserved"
Now. whether ther' was an imprepw
deecription contained in the deed % Nj.
Denny. of date Nay q, 1865, a. Dots !
Am not fully advised. Bot Certainly g
shs,e vas an erroneous descripttoo n
n !, Ia ordnance No. sc, 1t v4o rot
rav.atuated by ordinance No. III, I'M
Iese there hiss been grave error oom-
mittsd bvyfle surveyor ia a recent 9uk-.
yey Of tlo lands which bays been eet
apart asa public spark ~ that os4in~
nnoe. M sss...ss K.
Council the onvassioa Of the csmetsry
into park. the matter yas referrso ~
me as ci,y attorney. ! required Of Ne
Danny resurvey OF Ne prop4xty and
ded conveying the s41ne % the city for
he purpose of park before any steps
sould be taken. The new survey was
msde, and description of the property
q furnished by the Surveyor was con.
hined in deed by Mr.. Denny and wife
b the city of Seattle, dated March 2o.
1884. This deed WAS deposited vita me
In sscyow by Mr.. Denny. The land set
apart az public park by said ordinance
Ia described exactly in said ordinance
as il is descrised in the deed frem Mr..
Denny. This description differs from
the one contained in the deed OF MAY
q, 1865. Tie last deed leaves out a
small strip on one side and takes in .
greater amount ON the other side of the
tract The ordinance, after giving the
Dc ,criptioa of the land as contained III
the dred from Mr.. Denny. contains
these words:
"Being the same tract OF land de-
scribed in deed dated March %, 1854,
from d. L. Denny and Louisa Denny
his wife, TO tue city of Seattle, convey
ing the said tract Of land 10 said city,
be converted, dedicated and set apart ~
public park, to be known and called
Seattle Park and all bodies buried
therein shall be removed"
think no error has been "perpetu-
afed," nor has any new one been made,
The city has not suffered any loss OF
damage by the rep..ai of ordinance No.
Us. IL woald hardly do to have piece
OF land. dedicated and set apart rs A
park, subj OF to use as a place of burial,
as would have been the case If ordin-
ance No. 36 had not been repealed. The
CITY attorney will surely advise the
mayor that none of tue powers of the
city have been abolished by the repeal
OF that ordinance. The data upon which
the Mayor founds bis statement affect.
ing the legality of the ordinance in
question seems to have been furnished
oy one of the cemetery commissioners.
venture to say that the able city attor-
ney We now have will find that the points
raised are not we'll taken.
10 certainly Is aot material now
whsther the cemetery was properly
dedicated or not. The question now IL,
mas the city got any land for parki
snc, u 30, has IL beea set apart for that
purposei | think IL has. | will say,
however, that the Mayor Ia right in and
ilng fault with the description contained
N ordinance No. So, but the imperfec-
.ons therein are not perpetuated, even
y ordinance No. 5fl does describe the
No. Sc.
The Importance OF this matter TO the
poolio is my excuse for writing this ar
s'ois. RICHARD OSBORN.