The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-11-23
COX PeossER 70 JUDoE BURKE.



1.-The HarbOr Line Dispute.
SEATTLE Nov. % 1890.
kf$49 zlotsds Burke, Egg: Your open letter of
- {1<h INST addrossed to me Ct North Yakima
sou1 Dnblishod IN the columns Of the Posr-IN-
91Ex1oUcnn. has been read and it, contents
Anly con6idsred. To % much Of your letter rs
xGN6oos - The work OF the havboe line commits
o1on I shall endeevor to make some suitable r.
~, though = that part Of 1t but little answer
5 - ths personal and scurrilous part, Of which
1t 0hio1Y Conalstay shall also make some an
DWog. though II Il IN unpleasant duty to drag
6o(oeo tho public matters with which It has 10
i Ma ~ IN attorney. You have evidently learned
- lesson well, that when you have poor
oonoe you.ere 70 abuse the attorney on the OPP
pouite Ulde. You should have learned one or
txo other tmpeEsant Lessons At the same time.
ono a. these lossons. which you havs m .ni-
516tly ovsflooked OF neglected. IL to speak the
truth. Another u that you reverence The laws
q your country. OF. " least out Of proper re-
G1xd Tor public opinion. you should avoid treat
~ them with disrespect and con
tompA Your criticism, II its cor
tneod tumble OF Bubbles. insinuations
and ialsehoods may 20 be called. Of the work Of
~ hAzbor line commission, has degenerated
INTO personal attack upon its chairman.
have Looked In vain through the dreary piati-
1u1ea and violent abuse of which your long
oonmunication mainly consists, for one word
which indicates any respect for the laws of the
Gfate, any farther than those laws may be used
- suit your purposes or contribute to your per-
Uopal advantage. In my article on the work OF
S che commission. published in the PosTINrELLI
exxcRn Of the 18th instant, aud to which your
letter pusports to make reply. avoided any ais
Cua1lon Of the legal questions involved in this
work. hecause did not wish 70 be discourteous
Or disrespectful 70 the courts where these ques
lions were pending, and whose decisions there
UPON Il wos hoped and expected would soon be
made. simply stated certain propositions or
conclusions which had been reached or agreed
upon BY the board. With . statement OF the
methods employed by the board in reaching
those conclusions. without regard 10 the fact
that these legal questions were pending be-
foee che courts. you have undertaken to argue
them. In . feeble way. it is true.
bnt in way which shows
your anxiety 70 prejudice them In advance OF
the courts. II would, however. be the crosses ST
disxespect to the courts andinexcusable iattery
on my part to intimate that the quibhles you
advance as arguments would have any influence
whatever upon any court OF the country wor,.,y
OF the name. The first proposition stated by
me- was, THAT the land lying between the line
Of high water and Of low water. is the absolute
proptrty in fee simple of the state and is under
~ dlrect control and management" To this.
exception IL taken, aud am SUNNI as.ly asked.
among other things, II am ignorant OF the
fact that in many cases the United Stxtes has
granted patents for lands lying below the line
OF ordinary high tide?" Certainly not. ana you
know perfectly well that the United States gov
eminent ftsel could not make a title 10 land
below the line Of high tide without the consen,
OF the ststa and therefore section of article
XVI. Of the constitution of the state OF Wash.
fugton was enacted by its people which reads
q follows: THE state OF Washington disclaims
Ill title In and claim 10 ali tide, swamp aud
oycrAowcd lands. patented by the United
States; Provided. the same is not i'm.
peached for fraud" The mesnder
line OF the United States government survey
eumetimes passes above and sometimes below
ths line Of high tide. leaving occasionally a ma !.
row strip below that line. and IN order that the
general government might perfect title which
would otherwise be imperfect the state relin
auiehed in rights thereto. This only con rrms
the absolute truth Of my general OPPOSITION as
above stated. II in no wise affects the work oi
the commission, because the commission never
proposed 20 60 above the meander line of the
untted States government survey. This 10 only
sample of the pitfful bubbles which you Dc
Light 10 introduce ~ substitute for argument
Tor the purpose Of ob<euring aud mystfying
facts, Instead OF meeting them face TO fsce like
an honest man. In reply to another PROPOSE
ticn, as stated BY me- s.that the riparian OWE,
has the night 10 wharf out 90 deep water. hut
this right may b taken away ~ aay time by fhs
state" you again sheer at my supposed igno
rance 0f tbs Law. and quote from the late 10
Ueuted Justice Miller. Of the supreme court OF
The united States. ss follows. This riparian
HR1t u pRoperfy, ana il yaiun-