The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-20
HARBOR LINE CASE.
Hearing Continued Yesterday
Will End Today.
RIGHTS ARE DENIED.
Able Arguments Are Used on Both
sides-State Ownership of Tide
Lands Discussed.

yesterday, and occupied the entire day ana
q special night session held for that pur-
pose The hearing will close today.
Judge Burke began the argument in be-
half of Yesler He said at was my in
tention to argue this case fully and at
some length. but in view Of the able argu-
ments of Mr.. Shepard and Colonel Haines
shall not do so. 1t seems to me that they
have covered the case pretty fully, with the
exception of one point, upon which they
did not dwell as fully as deem proper. That
point is the injury that viii result to the
petitioner by the proposed fling of this
map of the harbor line commissioners.
We contend that great and serious injury
will be done US, and cloud will be cast
upon the title to our property. No one
will care to purchase piece of property
with lawsuit attached to it, and can any
one assert that litigation will not follow
the Ling of this map, or can anyone bor-
row single dollar on property with this
cloud upon it? 1t is ruinous, simply
ruinous, and we contend that the state
ought not and cannot place its citizens in
such an embarrassing position. This
cloud should not be allowed to settle down
upon our property. The law has furnished
us a means of relief in the courts ofequity,
III
private individuals they can much more
readily intervene between the state and an
individual, because the power of the state
is greater than that of any individual.
Il maintain that from the formation of
the constitution down to the passage of
the harbor line commission act that a
monstrous outrage has been attempted to
be perpetrated upon those whom this state
ell y11 3 L
to this country at period when it was a
bowling wilderness, the home of the saw
age and lair of the wild beast; those who
held their lives in their hands while at
tempting to carve out home for them
selves, and future marts of trade for their
descendants; those who have made this
great state what it is; the men who settled
on the shores of Elliott bay and endured
the perils and hardships incident to the
life of pioneers in their efforts to lay the
foundation of this city of today. | say it
is shame and disgrace to consum-
mate this outrageous spoiiation of these
old settlers whose very acts have been
legalized by past legislature, but who
now must see the results of long years of
privation going from them because, for
sooth, board of harbor line commits
line of Seattle must be located ut certain
points. For shame, ] say, upon methods
that elevate the demands of the state to
pinnacle so high that the rights of the
individuals who compose that state are
entirely lost sight Of
Never let it be overlooked for one
moment that such an act will be shock
to the credit and prosperity of the state
vii tak ho vi do To
come, not only because it irreparably
Injuries the credit of the component mem
bers of the state, but because it is a recog-
nized maxim of economic science, that
whatever Injuries the individual has an
equally deplorable effect upon the entire
commonwealth. Not only are all of the
authorities on the side of the petitioner.
but justice, reason and logic are also on
that side, and this court should sustain
the writ of prohibition which is sought in
this action"
Acknowledgement Jones then began the
argument in favor of the state and the
harbor line commission and said: 81
came before the court prepared to listen
to arguments, the logical outcome of which
was TO declare the constitution unconsti-
tutional and was prepared to hear adj
yanced the theory that the acts of the leg
islature were invalid, but must confess
| was not prepared to hear the court asked
to lend its sanction to this declaration |
was not prepared to hear the assertion that
this court, a creature of the constitution,
was higher power than its creator-the
constitution itself. was prepared for the
petitioners to Lght for time in order to
bring the matter before the legislature,
but was not prepared to hear them frankly
acknowledge this to be the case.
.The petitioner has set up certain facts
in the complaint, hut not one word con-
a,t, .rxl.t a.
almost the whole argument OF counsel has
been ba: ed, and ia ] to see how they can
have any standing in court. At common
law all shores along navigable waters be-
longed to the crown, and since the organiz-
alton OF this Union belonged to the states.
This right properly belongs TO the states
by virtue of their inherent sovereignty.
The decisions all go to show that the
United States has no power to sell the
beds, shores and nayigable waters of the
sea. The legal title of certain property is
in the United States, but the United States
cannot sell it. Private proprietorship ends
at low water mark, and the individual
owner has no interest whatever beyond
that line. In Connecticut it was even
held that sea weeds deposited between high
and low water mark were the property OF
the finder and not the owner of the land
adjacent.
cat common law the state is the abso-
along these naviganle waters. The state
holds this property in trust for the public,
but from listening TO the counsel on the
the other side we would have been led TO
believe that it was held in trust for Ii. l..
Gesler ct al.
IF the riparian owner has the right to
this property he will continue to have
those rights, but he has no such rights.
He can only acquire such right by pur-
chase from the state. The state can sell to
whomSoever itpleases. Those who have
pre-empted and occupied the shore lands
will have the preference in purchasing.
but the state can sell 10 anybody.
Il deny that any part of this act is in
con met with the constitution of the
United States, as has been asserted by the
other side; there is no conaict whatever.
The act Is in conformity with the con-
stitution of the United States, and is
framed under the constitution of the
state.
This commission is created by the con-
constitution itself. The people put the
clause in the constitution because il was
considered too sacred TO be interfered with
by courts or legislature. They said these
harbors should not be taken by private
parties; the people have spoken, and they
are sovereign. The people did not see II
TO vest In any tribunal the right TO say
how wide or where these harbor lines
should he located, and did not see 1T 10
entrust the legislature with the power 70
appoint this commission. but lodged the
appointing power with the governor for
the reason, perhaps, that they thought the
governor would use more care and caution
IN the selection of these commissioners
than would be used If the selection we're
ieit to the chances OF politics in the legis-