The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-10-17

fao The coars nays. Upon tire saunsssiou Of
ss.oTaia snsn The Urson uron eaasl ioosins
va The original states, absolute properly In
-. nialss and sovese1gnsy ovsc AL soils
s11eF toe tide wEferx within her limits rsAs<e-f
70 tae state The same doctrine uss
previously asserted IN roEart's Lessess "
Hsysn How. 80: In Martin " wadaesi. "
Peters. 49, In Mam.ord n warfwsiI. Wal.
81 ~
Assuming fos TIE purposes Of the a-xurens
nat osv eoncsusioas are erroneous. and thar the
IGlfed Ssetss possessed the g-o.zcr 20 x-sy. tRs
sssa fsee lands 90 individuals We maintain fur
ICY maj these lands mad bees Withdrawal FROM
eairF priar 70 the Sling os tAi. spp.scztlon
~ ssSslca ct 81 act Of congress approved
fessa2sy -, isss ana eo;srsed. AN &C. 10 PRO
fAas sor the division Of Dakota INFO .vo ssases
sa1 70 ensbas the people o. Serth Dakota. south
psSofs- Montana s.d Washington 10 form con
ss-Aasaoas asss state governments ard 20 lie al
s-a,'ea into he EEs1n On al equal footing with
ne Original states, ami 40 rsxe donssscas OF
Punae iancs % eash states the United states
hss declared. And .f the constitutions ard
soFeTaEaents OF SAID proposed slate. arr = passi.
car 10 form, and II al the prusissoas Of ihis scg
1xFe been euEaplied with in the formation
tasfeof u shall Dc the duty OF the president of
sae tinted states 10 tzre bis proclamation an.
bouncing the result OF the sisctlon IN each and
tnssenpcn the proposed states which have
adopted constitutions aud forsned state govera-
nents az heEcia provided shall lie deemed al.
Fitted by ec5ETes- into the Union under and by
virtue OF this scf. on an equal foosing vita The
ongirai states from and alter the date OF said
rrocl afnstioav
by the passage q this aes the people of the
'erS3sefy OF Washington acquired q vested hight
20 DC aad become stats UPON the performance
Of certain conditions psecesi ens ard IL is worthy
o. note that these conditions precedent had
osen Performed prior 20 The fling of this sppsi-
csiion- We merely await the proclamation o.
The pFssideE, of the United States. and upon the
issuance OF that proclamation Washington Is
admitted into the Union on an equal footing
with he original states
by the unanimous decisions OF Cur courts Il
Las teen established beyond question First
that The original ststes possessed absolute
sovereignty and Jurisdiction over all the tide
isfds within their respective ligaiis; second,
ihsi The original states possessed their 5uris
cietiei. over their tide lands BY virtue OF their
Inherent sovereignty: third, that none of the
sovereignty over tide lands wss surrendered 10
the United States b. the constitution: and
fourth. taai u Is not within the power CT the
general government 10 reserve from the rev
states this uTibule OF state Sovereignty.
The only possible deduction. therefore. Is tia.
congress by this enabling act OF February -.
$50, provided that the state OF Washington
<acuid have the entire. absolute and uDauali-
fed Sovereignty and jurisdiction over her tide
lands. and 20 that end created trust In favor of
tAe rev state, and withdrew these lands from
entry.
In the argument Of the appellant The decision
OF Acting Commissioner Stone OF September o.
i.sa, in the matter OF the apple alton
OF Fraak Burns. IT.. To locate
valentine scrip on tide lands ia Seattle. is cited
ss an authority In support of the proposition
that tide lands are vacant lands within the
meaning of the Mckee act, and AZ the words
public lands and ''ysesnt lands may be con-
sidered synonymous. we desire 20 discuss the
reasoning in that decision upon which is based
the conclusion that tide lands are public lands
subject to entry. The decision is then quoted
In full as published In the Posr lxrELLieEsCER
OF september -
With all due Difference for the opinions OF
Acting Commissioner Stone ~ pronounced In
this decision, We are unable TO concur either I'm
the reasoning advanced the conclusion ar
rived at; neither do think the dicta OF Chief
Justice fancy combined with the dissenting
opinions OF Judge Catron sn ficient authority TO
change the established law of centuries.
All must admit that the title 81 the lands in
question vested in the United States al the
time when this application was made, bat the
nature OF that title. whether q fee simple with
power OF disposal or a trust estate, was the
direct point in issue and IL appears to should
have received that consideration which its i'm
pcrtance merited; aud, Notwithstanding the
assertion OF the learned commissioner To the
contrary, We most emphaticslly aud seriously
assert that the United states holds these tide
lands as trustee, and that Washington territory
Is possessed OF right and claim TO this part of
the unapproprsted lands of the United states
lying within her borders: and that this RICH, and
claim consists of the equitable Interest of
eestai que trust
We consider this proposition fully determined
txsf s{z.s. - NJ
vs.. Eslava aud Mobile W. Hsliett are not OPP
posed 10 this position The court was composed
OF eight justices, seven OF whom Joined In the
opinion. Judge cstron rendered dissenting
opinion in which ne held that the United states
could convey tide lands in territory prior to
it's admission into the Union. Most sssuredly
the dissenting opinion OF one justice cannot be
taousht To overthrow the majority opinion of
The court, and cited as All authority establishing
important presidents of law.
The learned commissioner in referring 10 the
case Of Pollard's Lcssees vs. Hagan. says: THE
judge who delivered this opinion nowhere says
the United States has no power OF disposal over
tide lands prior to the admission OF the state
iuto the Union. He certainly knew that Chief
Justice fancy in a ease prior TO that had held
the power to exist" We desire to call attention
10 the fact that the judge who delivered this
opinion was the mouthpiece of majority OF the
court that Chief Justice fancy was one Of the
seven justices who participated in that opinion:
aud that the conclusions arrived a. by the court
were expressed rs follows;
by the preceding course 81 reasoning We have
arrived at these general conclusions: First, the
shores OF navigahle waters and the soils under
hem were not granted br the constitution TO
the United States. but were reserved To the states
respectively. second. the new states have the
same rights sovereignty and Jurisdiction over
this subject the original states; third, the
right of the United states 70 the public lands aud
the mower 81 congress ia make all needed rules
and fegu iations for the sale and disposition
thereof. conferred no power 70 grant 20 the
plaintiffs the land in controversy in this case"
Now, il the chief justice ia case prior 10 this
had held power oi disposition ~ exist, he most
rtaiuly had changed his views when he at
facaea his signature 10 the above quoted COZ
cns{ons OF Jaw.
We further insist that by the language used.
which must have been chosen with great care,
principles of law were established directly ae-
cidiug the issue icing under this application.
and IL was then determined that new states have
the same rights. sovereignty and Jurisdiction
over tide lands ~ had the original states aud
this broad principle % law has never been over
ruled or questioned, bat has been reafiFnei in
manT cases We quote from the latter part OF
tie learned commissioners decision as sustain
iac our position in this case.
ia aapesrs to ae that the decision ln theIhiTd
Howard case went only 80 the extent that the
United states could not grant land under nsvi-
gable waters of the state 81 Alabama There
were reasons s0T this outside ot the general
question We are considering. Alaasms
o-isiuAilv Part al the territory OF georgia J;
vas eeeied To the United states by Georgia sud