The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-21

should we prevent it2 We do No, III.
Possession, but we do claim fbe r;,sar;a.,
r'gnss appendant to our propertv p'Aiiai
Z, ;e9Ii:nlIiilssion Is attempting to travel
b.i : 1 , which is claimed tn he
nero under void statute. The ca, ~ De
sion Itself is distinctly an inferior tr;h,,,,y
anu THIS court IS superior and hos ;,,-is,isH'
hon over 1t. Both are creatl,ro. 80 az,
..pohsttutloh, but the court is suner,or -,
s sae SoiIiiiiission and its powers extend ha1
yong ma any that this body may claim i'm D
5as;a,'..sS ~ "a the commission have been
designated star chamber nroceafI;na,, oo I'll
properly so, for this act in essai,5;s'i' anu
those narbor lines was an er mart nattars
altnougn 1t seriously effects the r;gbts -
property-owners. And the act of the Ieo;s.
iaturc taxes mans INFRINGEMENT. I'D
leaves n nm no compensation in resnrn
aea omlers OF this property, which Is
,sa,ssas; go i.iiliosapie, are entitled to com
pensa.ioh., consequential damages which
cannot be secured under the common l .ra,
hay ~ canned under the provisions of
tnc constitution. The state has daroaoed
private property, because it has made no
PROVISIONS for compensation 10 those
Mnose rights 1t seeks TO take. If these
a,d d.i Ia, rights exist at all, they exist here.
anu are incident to the ownership az M
land by reason of its contiguity 70 tbc
wafer. The land where this cftv now
stands was originally taken I'm bv reason
OF us fronting on the water.
riparian rights are property. They
are destroyed here, and, as no provision +
s snaue LOT damages by this act it is there
and extensive improvements have hee,,
made which from the very nature of
Inihgs have become fixtures NJ tba vo;I
Illes have been driven, wharves CON.
structed, and the owners are entitled to
pay for their fixtures.
ne action OF this commission reminds
LII ins VI = caise where a country lawyer went
pelore justice of the peace and asked for
writ OF habeas corpus to get hack n horse
tnat had been stolen. The Justice was
alterward told that he could not give n
VIII Oh habeas corpus for horse. but he
saia he could do it and had already done
The court here interrupted Mr.. Shepard
TO inquire If that occurred In this county
and II he was the lawyer referred to.
lie answered that it might have occurred
III II, this county, but he was not the LAWYER.
linen, continuing, he said: .fhe oI1es-
tlon IS whether riparian rights exist, and
not whether this state has declaredth they
Go not exist. The state has provided in its
CONSTITUTION ~ that private property cannot
De take Tor public use, and it is begging the
question when it contends for these rights.
The inception OF 1eslers riparian rights
Will not be when this court declares he
has them--ifi it so declares-but when he
became the owner of the land, which car
RED with 1T these rights.
ne sea mas ever been a highway for all
individuals. Let us see how it has been
treated. 1t never occurred to ANYBODY
except these commissioners to consider
the areas OF the sea ANYTHING else but n
public highway, and people are not sup
posed to wear divers suits, but are sup
posed to have the right to go to and from
the deep waters. If the state exercises
these rights, which the attorney general
CLAIMS 1t has, it can do anything with these
waters, and can divide up the sea and dis
pose of it at public sale if it so desires.
riparian rights exist as an inviolable
right of property, as much so as is mans
right to his domicilc. SO far as the
riparian proprietor is forced to yield up
and pay for his access, that far will he be
injured, and the upland property will be
reduced IN value and irreparably damaged
II these proceedings may endure" Mr..
Shepard during his argument cited many
authorities In support of his case.
When he concluded Judge Lichtenberg
said: Son some points involved in this
case we have already reached a conclusion,
but the attorney generals argument has
presented some new features that we de-
SIRE to thoroughly investigate, We have
been requested to render speedy decision,
but will not do so until we can fully exam
inc the authorities and fully investigate
this important subject 1t will probably
take two or three weeks to fully examine
this case with such time as we can give it,
and as we propose to go into the issues
fully and carefully, it will probably be that
long before we can decide it.
The other harbor line cases will not be
heard or acted on until this case is finally
disposed of, and all of the cases will doubt
less go to the supreme court together.