The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-11-15

In Reply 10 Colonel Pr0sserss Defense 81
the Harbor Line CommissiOn.
4raxr1n Nnw II fnn0

- hepsy 20 COs00ol fF0ooofso Oef0uo0 OK
the Harbor Line Commission.
SEATTLE, Nov. Il. 11eo
TO Colonel william =. Proeser North Yakima
sir: I zee BY the PosrINrEExxGxxcKR that
AFTER many days of deliosrAtieo, you have given
70 the public your defonso Of the work OF the
board OF haroor line commissioners in Seattle
harbor- And . mrss curious and extraordinary
oeSense IL 10 II were TO cnt ont Of this defence
the personal abuse Of Mr. Burke and tho com
piacenf lasdstion Of the commission. I do not
say that there would Be nothing left but it 10
sale e say there would be 20 lite left q 10
i-sve no excuse Of rufsos deetre for the publica-
lion Of the three-COlumn communication which
you are pleased 70 speak Of ~ - brief state
ment" think. however. the people Of Seattle
ought 70 b thankful to you for that de1iverance,
because no person, however incsedu1ous. can
meditsted BY the harbor line commission In s..
sttle Evidently the alarm was not sounded
one moment to soon.
IN nat small portion Of your letter which ron
devote to consideration u the subject matter
upon which the commission was called to act
you proceed with great show Of learning and
an air OF profound vision to formulate several
propositions; bat the most casual examination
OF them will show that they are s'as sounding
brass and tinkling cymbaa" Take the 6rst
proposition for example: "That the land lying
between the fne Of high water and Of deep
wafer fs the absolute property, In fee simple
OF the state, and IL under its direct control aud
management" Are You ignorant OF the fact
that in many cases the United States has
granted patents for lands lying below the line
OF ordinary high It'd? And are you ignorant of
the further fact that the state constitution in
enect confirms such patents? II you are not,
now did you come to formulate your first propo-
sitiJn without Limitation or quail. fication?
In the city Of Seat lie costly brick structures
have been bullt below the line OF ordinary high
ude, and yek according TO your FIRST PROPOSE
uons al this property belongs to the state in fee
simple Are you aware tnat courts OF this
country, distinguished for their ability and
learning, have held that the state ownership of
land between high and low water mark in navi-
gaoie waters IL not an ownership In fee simple
q ALT But this II mo-, perhaps. the place or tho
occasion for the discussion OF the various legal
propositions involved in the action Of the COM
NILSSON; and yet cannot forbesr drawing ct.
sention 20 TWO or more Of your proportions as
an illustration of your ignorance OF the subjects
upon which you assume to lay down the law
with such show Of authority. One of yoar
propositions reads 40 follows: "Tnat the ri
parian owner has tn right to wharf out to deep
wster, bat this right may be taken away at any
time ~ the state" And in your very next prop.
ofition you declare that II these riparian own
ers make improvements on the shore they are
trespassers! am 'old that yon are . member
OF the bar; and. while Il would be going too far,
perhaps, TO assume that you nave ever read any
OF the decisions of the supreme court
OF the United States. It is fair to
assume that you have at least heard Of them
And here is what that illusirions court spe aking
through the late lamented Justice Mt Ter, said
upon your third proposition, and wish you
uld read the two together: This riparian
rieht 10 property, and 10 valuable, and tn
u must be enjoyed in subjection to the rights Of
the public, 1t cannot be arbitrarily or ca.
priciously destroyed or impaired 1t is Z right
Oh which, when once vested. the owner can
only De deprived in sccordancs with established
law, ana II necessary that 1t b taken for the
public good, upon due compeus- ton" The
naroor line commission has not he.ita;ed in its
malignant and stupid scheme to piIlaee Seattle
ana her citizens, to ov rride the lava of the
state; but 1t was reserved for the chairman of
that commissson to still iurther si2nalize him
self by publishing an opinion In the newspapers
overriding decision of the supreme court Of
the United States
Yoa say that for thirty years or more the men
VINO oeilt and maintained wharves in Seattle
nsfoor were trespassers. Do you not know that
sor more Than quarter of century there was
law upon the statute books OF the territory.
aurhorixlng the building Of wharyes, etc. by
pr vate persons-a law not repealed to this day?
And yet you proceed to declare that the perspna
who have built and maintained wharyes are
trespasssrs-vlolaters OF law. h w do you sup-
pore the commences Of the city couli have been
built up. maintained and extended without
wharves and docks? Where n you ind : moro
deserving OF merttcrfous class OF cit zens or Z
Class that deserves more OF the state than the
men whe. for now moro than . generation.
built and maintained the wharves and dOcks In
Seattle harbor and steadily upheld her
commercial supremacy against every OPP
positionf Within the last eighteen
months. that IL, since the great Ere OF June
1889, the people and companies of Seattle have
expended In improvements on the water front
not Tess than $4,000. The prompt and ener.
eetic action of the citiz in thus repairing the
ravases OF nre was necessary e. save the COM
merce OF this city. And now. under the hypo-
critical pretense Of duty to the state you. VINO
never contributed % much - . farming or a
feathers weight to the upbuilding Of this city
you carps tbag office-nolder, who came 20 the
territory with commission in your pocket, and
nave continually ever since held once or been
seeking it-yous now in fine fit of hypocriucal
frenzy, ak about the re,titude of your inten-
tons and coolly propose to confscate every
dollar of tn property to the stat.. You pro.
pose to commir one OF the greatest public thefts
on record, aud thus commend yourself to the
electors in whose supposed interest the unprin.
cipled deed 10 to be done. Bnt, like all your
class oil oemsgogues. you have overdoue the
matter The public consci. nee win revolt a,
such an outrage. II cannot be consumnated.
The state must BE- just. i cannot. no more
than the individual. disregard the plain pripcf.
pies of justice aud fair dealing. There IL no
warrant in the constitution or the laws of this
safe for the taking of pr vate properly without
compensation. The laws of the state plainly
recognize the right Of properly In wharves.
docks and Ike improvements, and protect fpdi-
vi0uai ownership In such property. The hsrbor
lines could have been laid by this commission 40
a. 10 give width of 600 feet in by far the great
est part of the harbor, without takiug In auv of
The improvements. the wharves docks and
other Improvements are for the most part. con.
centrated within small portion of Seattle mar.
Dor. Common sense, Common honesty and
simple justice should have suggested to the
Commission that where these improvements
were gatneredth the harhor rim. under tn. discre-
ton lodged In tie commission, might be re-
duced In width 80 as not TO Ieceesitate the an
preparation Of private property. This was
the course plainly pointed out by the constitu-
ton and laws of the state: and by adopting it
the state on the one hand, would be amply 4 d
aountanty protected, while. on the other and.
property RI hts of private indiv dusls would be
respected. Neither the commission nor anv
one else has ever given q sound. or even plans.
ible, reason for rejec.ing so just course. Your
pep sterous assertion that by Including this
$500 600 worth of improvements within venr
proposed haroor rim. you were not confiscatiug
private property. because the men whose prom
erty you would thus take might nav m opnor-
tanity 10 leae their own property from the
ate. needs only 10 be stated 70 expose Won 70
universal rdicule and contempt Amau owns
house worth, say $1,000 The state G ms
along and takes it from him. He objects tn
the robbery. and you tel him; why sir