The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-11-30


p.f...;..- =. A. 1890. 49, -.
-
speeding the location Of the Harpof Line,
the Spokane Falls Review says:
1ns neht dist = now betng nsde upoa the
49,, ~ ...e eo = ~ @..s pa =
Company sud che seattle q Montana Rai.roed
Company 70 eain absolute controiOf the wster
0as g ~ 81 - g ssnlns.on: ne 9 o.o
NJ fsrmsn - 800 s.l.v arm nrsbend this
danger whsn It 4 learned that the ksatsle 4
Aonssns = slppossd g oe opefsfins IN the 10.
81 ne vsssr frrnt = ines .,io ns And
they w.ll Be aole to shut cot ali opposition from
the uheat-carying trade Of the inland empire.
And further on:
TIE iransrs ct the constitution: IN their lar
srssast .hss. cros.r. sra .,s.dv corro,s.
tions, and declared that in front Of each incor-
pcratsd seaport city hsroor strip should for
sssa = 49,. llo sa,e q = = .us
irsl snd corporarions for periods not exceedinr
thirty years. The intent Of this reservation was
pacvens sne nsrDpr Ilonss % .ne e.eas cas'e.
porssiens ana 8 az 8 = tine hrinr : revenue
% h people. knd fse nee taxation.
I.e corporations ere nov snoeayorins 20 rem
su,ion ma ,nls.. tSs nscr,s .s;.s IS thsir
mig BIT there is danger Of their success.
Ali Of which is based upon q sad mis-
understanding Of the facts. The primary
error OF the Review is with reference to the
purposes Of the state in it, disposition Of
the tide lands When the tide land aues-
ton Was before the legislature last year
there was strong interest in favor Of
retaining ell tide lands, including those In
front Of and adjacent to incorporated
cities, - permanent source of revenue
for the state It was proposed that the
state should follow the example OF Cali
fornia. namely, 20 build warehouses and
docks. railroad tracks, ETC., wherever they
should be required along tae fronts of the
several cities, and transact, either in its
own name or under > lease arrangement.
general dockage and warehouse business
--in short. that II should hold . monopoly
81 this business. For this plan two merits
are claimed: First, that it would be forever
. large resource for state revenue; and.
second, that u would prevent onerous
rates Of wharfage and dockage and 30 lift
. burden from commerce, and therefore
from the producers Of the country.
But TO thus reserve the lands TO the state
involved total disregard Of the rights or
claims OF = large number Of citizens who
had occupied these lands, made extsnsive
improvements upon them and created In .
large pert Il not wholly their present
value. The legislature considered all the
facts In the argument fully and carefully,
rejected the proposition for state owner.
ship ana fully recognized the claims OF the
improyers. The idea Of rsserving the tide
lands along the several city fronts was ex-
pressly abandoned.
The provision with reference to harbor
lines was made. not for the purpose of rev.
enue, but with the idea Of holding the sew
eral harbor fronts subject to state regula-
ton through perpetual state ownership
OF strip Of land between the city front
and che line Of deep water. The idea was
not to get revenue, but to protect COM
merce. But the harbor line commissioners
have failed to recognize these essential
facts and have undertaken to do what the
legislature expressly declined to do. namely,
to reserve q large lot OF property along the
city front in total disregard of the claims
or rights Of the improvers. For the
purposes OF regulating freight charges
. reservation of strip ten feet wide or one
foot wide would be as adyantapeous A a
.. 90, -.