The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-01-03
THE FERRY CONTROVERSY.
Capt. Hoyt's Power 10 Remove
the Starr in Question.
Justice soderberg Decides Against
the Agent ofthe oregca Railway
q Navigation COMPANY.

Tie Arguments Of TIE city attorney. for
TIE Prosecution. End 9r. HAl1er. for the
t1efsaee. zr- EaHtori being ah@euf- were
heard b Justice scserherg Inss evening,
u tie ease agatas- Agent Policy, Ct tAse
oreSoa KaissaT S2vixs4ioa Company
NJ Fos5F sas CHARGED with interfering
With HzrborFaaster Hoyt. las. MONDAY
While Capt Hcyi waa having tie steamer
eeayvs z Starr removed ozt Of tie way Of
the West Seattle ferry Al the feet Of Msiu
street
Iiss question q titles vas raised b Mr.
Haiie-, ~Ao said the case vas Simply
e0atxovezEey between the Oregon Railway
4 Navigation compsny and the fer.y
company lie referred a. sofne length 10
the ctr eharter 10 sllsw tast. while the
City Is given the power az police FeEnlz-
ton over the ssfbor. and can construct
docks aud Whs-ve. a. TIE foo, Of aDy street.
y has not the right 10 give assay sgeh pub
lie doek. wbSrs OF slip, or sach portion Of
puislie street 70 any ons private iuaivid-
uHi Or corporation, exclusive - the Eeu-
ersl public. Therefore. the harsor master
was simply acting in the interests Of
the ferry company. whice. under
the charter, had no raore right
70 land and moor is vessels A. any raartir-
uiar point there than Euy other water
craft IN regard 10 the Oregon Railway &
Navigation ConpsEy, ia wharf Wss Z psi-
Tsfe 0le bu5iE Inside the lsae Of the street,
and rs steamer vas moaYeG alongside
aad engaged In Unloading a csrga-the
very end and a.m ~ al navigation and
eommeHcz. sad ne ha-b9fnAstcy had ne
right b eas - ,isat vessel 70 move out Of
the wsy = es&nutneF vessel In The de-
feuse IA STiPs was that Mr.. Polly was
gai.sv az 10 osense by interfering with ths
l. Al. f..
0Yersteppea the bounds OF bis auty.
To Offset these propositions tie city at
to-uey referred TO the city charter and Or
dinances. and cited similar case ct De
fgoit, Mich. 70 show cOaclGsively that the
city had sufficient police regulations over
The harDor and wEaryes "a allow the ha--
bormester the power under the eircuUl-
stances 70 fOrClbly remove the Star.
Botn Messrs H0yt and Policy Were
pat upon the stand. the iuten-
ton Of the prosecution Being IN
prove that II was e deliberate policy OF OBJ
structiOn on the part Of the oregon Rail-
way s Navigation Co. aud the object OF
tne defense being TO show that Mr. Policy
simply inferferea with Capt Hsyt. when
the latter had stepped beyond his duties
aud was trespassiSg spon the property Of
the NayisziiOu, Company.
Justice eOderbeFg made an oral decision
in favor of the prosecution, net wishing to
be understood. however, rs yielding to the
proposition that the ferry company had an
exclusive moHoE0ly of the use of this part
OF Main street, known a. the ferry slip, but
as deciding that under the circumstances
the haTBormsster had the power 10 remove
the starr. and that any resistance 70 him
while engaged in sHch duties ia the en-
forcement OF the cify's regulations is a
misdemeanor.
He withheld his sentence until Saturday
AZ 10 q. m, 50 as to give the defense an op-
portunity 10 appeal 10 the district court on
the findings, which be would then attach
10 the commitment or ABe. Mr. Halter is
OF the opinion that the questions involved
should have been determined in q civil
salt rather than in criminal proceedings.