Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-12-18
= LAhD Dscrsssz ~ EsCAx rxrxs.


-
~ much interest," on fhe mart of tbs
oar and publis h2s baen maiifesfed h
sssRasd g the appeal Gases of James q.
10y and Thomas b. Valentine from -
.os1on of TIE Register and Receivcr a
kne United bfatss Land Once a Oiym-
Pla. ". II. refusing the appIicssisn Of
nay ana talentine 70 locate Valentine
scrip on esrtain lands bordering On
LAke Union, the sams lands being
claimed 70 be owned, occupied and i'm
proved By David r. Benny asd Thomas
MERCER, herewith furnish d copy of
sne late decision rendered by the Honor
ecie Gommiasionex Of the General
Land OAlce ~ Washinzton. sustainrne
sne action Of the Register and Recsiver
at the local land oflics. Hon. John h.
AsscnelI acted ~ counsel for the inter-
sensfs. JoHS b. DExsy
WHAT THE COMMISSIONER skYs.
DEPAkr,6Exr or nm IxrEnron. l
GKxK8AL LAND OYYrcx.
Fs AnHrNqToA. ~ ~. Nov. ~, 1854
Reght<y As.d Rec@issr. bivapia' M r.
0nwzkx1rxw: h6xo eoesidersd tn ap-
peal Of James II. May from your action
IN rejecting his application, died Decem
ber II .l6o3, - locatev aIoufine scrip Il. 63.
on certain Isnds in section 50, township
Is n, Il. E., Willamette Meridian,
Washington Territory. alleged 20 be uu-
surveyed and subiecs 10 appropriation.
The lands applied for lie along the
shore Of Lake Union ia front Of two
donation claims and bek,ceen the meaa-
der line and the scat<r's edge, and com
prise about 305< acres. Your action is
based on tho ground that the official
plat OF said township does not show any
vacant land as described in the appIica-
tion. II il alleged by David T. Denny
aud Thomas Mercer, who appear as in
tervenors, that the whole OF the land
applied for Is within the boundaries aud
granted limits of their donation claims
and cash entry No. 6a5. That the land
Is not vacant and unappropriated, bat
IL owned, occupied and improved by
them and others. and is within the in
corporated limits Of the city OF Seattle.
The official survey Of township % was
made IN 1855, the lines about the lake
being mcandered in the usual manner.
The donation claims conform Herewith.
Il In In evidence that the present
water line Of Lake Union, along that
portion Of said lake which lies adjacent
to the donation claims aforesaid, is
nov distance Of several feet farther
10 the north and east Of the meander
line OF the claim as originally sur
veyed; thai q dam was In existence
which extended across the outlet of the
lake, and by reason of the removal of
the dam and filing M Of brooks which
empty into the lake. the waters therein
have receded the distance Aforesaid.
The land thus exposed is that applied
for by Mr.. May, and is claimed by the
snferpesors as riparian owners under
their respective entries and patents.
The field notes of the survey of the
donation claims aforesaid, 20 far as the
lake shore boundary Is copcerned. show
that the line runs from q post en- the
shore thereof az the northeast corner Of
Deuny's claim.
it Is not clear whether Lake Union is
O naviQsble body of water or not, but
this fact, In my opinion. can make no
difference, as the riparian osnefs ia
either case wouli take to the waters
edge II no further.
Counsel for the intervenors insists
that. under the patents issued to them
by the Government for tho adjacent
lands, thsy own all the lands lying be-
tween the Government meander line
and the water.
In this view of the law I concur.
"whsn public lands border upon lakes
and rivera meander lines ara run as
means Of asoertaining the quantity in
the fraction subject TO sale, aud not as
boundaries of the tract" (Railroad vs.
Sohurmcir. 7 Wall, 272.) The lake in
this case was the great natural osject,
the sinuoeiiies OF which we're described
by the meander lines.
"The metes and bounds of that line
must, upon we'll settled principles, yield
10 the natural boundary" (Cass Of
Reuben Richardson, decided by the
Honorable Secretary July IL, 1883
The grants made by the Government
Of the lands lying upon the lake are not
limited by the meander line, bat extend
al least 90 the permanent water OF the
lake. (Ab The views here expressed
isaw 40 land upon the borders of the
lake subject to sale. and dispose OF the
case.
The other points raised by the inter-
venors need not be considered further
than to say that should hold the land
applied for not subject 20 location with
Valentine scrip, because occupied aud
being within the corporate limits OF a
city.
The application of Thomas b. valen-
tine to locate the same class Of scrip
on portion Of the lands applied for BY
Mr.. May will stand rejscted. Your de-
cisiou Ia both cases q GDfS7aed. so al
wise the parties of their right TO appeal.
Il. HARRrsoN, Acting Commissioner.