, 1890-11-20

| ucco.hes choTfnou8ly expensive, 70 shy
nothing OF a wall from sevcnty-fve to
eighty feet in height.
The utter absurdity of the proposition
| advanced and strenuously supported by
these gentlemen must be apparent 10
every intelligent man who gives the
subject the least consideration, and 1t
can only be accounted for on the theory
that II was part of u general plan, the
object of which has been to brow-beat,
buiido2c dragon or cajole tho commits
sion into tho adoption of any course
which might result in the surrender of
the most valuable property owned by
the state, worth many millions of dol
lars, into the hands of those who now
have II In their possession or under their
control. The commission had scarcely
began It's sessions In Seattle when 1t was
threatened with injunctions and other
legal Interruptions BY james McNaught,
the attorney OF the Northern Pacific
touch tho wharf of Mr.. III. l.. Yesler, or
to include any part of that wharf in the
area reserved as u harbor line by and for
the state. But because the commission
has refused to be inundated,
or otherwise improperly influenced
In the discharge of its plain
duty, parties deeply interested IN the
the Seattle water front become highly
indignant, and in their disgust and dis
appointment circulate false, Irrelevant
and misleading reports in regard TO the
commission and its action, and endeavor
to throw the entire community into u
fever or excitement and uneasiness by
pretending that ''monstrous Outrage
was about to be perpetrated upon the
people OF Seattle and great injury done
To its commercial interests. a ''mon-
strous outrage" would indeed have been
perpetrated upon the pc ope OF the whole
state, the effect of which would have
Ia.a., falt To- all Il I...
mmission accepted and approved the
suggestions made by these gcntlemen.
The Gcslor wharf for example, eH-
tends out INTO deep water. BY reason Of
its excellent location for commercial
purposes, 1t is becoming very valuable,
The land upon which it is located be-
longs to the state. The commission
could not see how its duty to the state
could be discharged without including
from 100 to 200 feet of the outer end OF
the wharf in the harbor line. IL pro-
posed to leave to Mr.. Gesler by far the
larger part of the wharf in tho rear OF
harbor line TO be purchased by him from
the state, and beyond question he would
be allowed to lease the portion included
in the harbor line at nominal rate per
annum for thirty years. What injury is
done to Mr.. Yesler by this arrangement?
None whatever. Does 1t deprive MIN
of the use OF the whurves and docks" as
| uSstIttu III ms ulliiuNlt1 ENOt Nv
The lawyers who drew his affidavit
knew perfectly well that no such result
would follow the action of the commits
sioners, that the situation would remain
precisely the same as II has been, until
the legislature should provide tor the
leasing OF state property reserved from
sale. and in the mean time business
would go on as usual at the old stand,
carried on as 1t has been heretofore, on
state property.
When Ihe fact became known, MIR.
Yesler, by his attorneys, j. ID. Lowman,
Thomas Burke and J. q. Haines, ap-
piled to the superior court for writ OF
prohibition, commanding tho commits
sion to desist from further proceedings
In the affidavit accompanying this writ
II is stated that Mr.. Yesler, lin aid of
commerce and navigation" built the
premises known as Ieslcr wharf The
question might be asked did Mr.. Yesler
build this wharf for the benefit OF the
public, or tor private gainp If tho tor
mer, then he should not be taxed in this
manner for the benefit of Others. II the
latter, then he is fortunate that ..e is
not called upon for the share OF the rents
ana profits of these premises during the
thirty years he has occupied them, be
longing to the state by virtue of its
ownership Of the land aud water upon
which these premises are located.
Prior to March ~, 1890, he was tres
passer upon this properly OF the state.
Under that act he claims the right to
purchase his improvements. Is the
state to be compelled to sell its most val
unble possessions and to part with per-
petual commercial interests because Mr..
l'esler happened to occupy for thirty
years, as trespasser, u gateway OF COM
merce which is becoming OF great value
to the commerce of the whole state2
Are the interests of Mr.. Sesler to be held
paramount to those OF thousands of set =,
tiers in Washington now and for all
time to come, simply because he has n
wharf on property needed by the state
for public welfareP Is Mr.. Gesler to be
permitted, because of the position he
occupies, to usurp tho powers and func-
tons of the state authorities, imposed
upon them by the constitution, and
under the pretense of rendering laid to
commerce and navigation" to control
the Commercial facilities" which he
now owns ut an important point in the
Seattle harbor for nll time TO Gomez
In your comments, Mr.. Editor, upon
the action of the commissioners. you
say that the whole spirit OF the legisla-
ton in the state concerning tide-lunds
and city front property has been with
tho idea of protecting the rights of those
whose enterprise has improved these
lands and made them valuable" In re-
ply TO this | have to say, that If it was
contemplated Dy Tue makers Oh tue con-
stitution and in the subsequent legisla-
tion III regard to harbor lines, that the
temporary, local and personal interests
of a few men, who located upon the prop
erty of the state, without title to the
land they occupied and without authori-
ty OF law, were to be considered and held
as paramount to the rights and interests,
present and prospective, of all citizens
of the state III this property required for
the control OF its vast commercial busi-
ness then indeed has the commission
mistaken the meaning of that legisla-
tion.
If the courts, having proper jurisdic-
tion, and whose mandates arc entitled
to the respect and obedience of the COM
mission, shall determine that your view
of this legislation is correct, then un-
questionably we shall accept that con-
clusion and act in accordance Herewith.
In the meantime the commission will
no doubt. continue to belicvc that the
claims of the whole people are entitled
to higher consideration than those OF n
few trespasscrs, and that the greatest
good TO the greatest number" Ia the
wisest and best policy to pursue. Nor
is there any coniiscation either possible,
or expected or contemplated. The talk
OF con hscation is only intended by the
parties originating IL to frighten the
community and the commission 1t pos
sible, into submission to the dictates of
those who wish to acquire property of
incalculable value, without any corre-
spending return to the state and who
wish to secure the permanent control of
| com merCial facilities. which The