The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-06
Highest Leavening Powerful Govt Report avg ~ |
Roe! B Bsxds1
ABSOLUTELY PURE

tutionsl convention used The words "ciiies
aud towns as practically synonymous, ana
the equivalent OF munlcipa. corporation,
The idea conveyed by the different sections
quoted is that, ia respect To rights and Priv
leges all muuic pal corporations, whether cities
or towns, should oe on an 81 Lality.
Now take the laws. The act appToFeu
March =. 1880, creating boar1 OF harbor iIne
comIuiss oners, provides IL section Tor Ioea-
ton OF ''haroor lines" in front 81 the corporate
limits OF any city, and farther on directs inc
harbor line commission TO tile duplicate maps
''iu the office of the clerk o. the city or town
where harbor lines shall have been located
The act approved March y, ls9j, provides lot
public ways Tor water craft in front OF al "in-
corp0rated cities and towns.
The act approved March %, 1890, which pro,
vides for the sale OF tide and shore lands
uses the words city" ana ''city or town lndis-
crimnately. in the same relation. as does also
the act approved March 9, 1891, entitled IAN act
relating 10 tide and shore lands.
The act approved March 10, 1891, IN relation 10
the Improvement of harDors ana waterways,
uses the words incorporated city or town.
throughout.
From these premises, il seems to us, the de-
duction that the legislature intended to place
all municipal corporations within the Iurlsdic-
ton OF the harDor line commission, Is lheFItaoIe.
The statutes quoted are IN relation 10 the SAM
or closely allied subjects, anu the patent OBJECT
TO be accomplished was the exercise OF tate
control over the subject OF wharf construction
and wharf charges. with view 20 the proven
ton OF undue exact ons from commerce py
private greed, ana To guard against the impair
ment OF harp1TS Dy q gent local adilluIstLa-
tious The evident intention was 10 give the
state control OF the water front AZ all shipping
points whether OF great or little present I'M
portauce.
The rule of construction herein contended Tor
is supported by People VS.. stephens, 90 Cal, 80,
ii being held, under similar circumstances with
the case at bar that the word city included
''town" The court decided that section OF
article 10 and section - OF article II of the con-
stitution of California, the one containing the
words ''city and county, or city or town. aud
the other the word "city" alone, as applicable
10 the same subject matter, must be construed
together in order to efcctuate the evident IN
tention of the constitutional convention.
IN the case of Van Ripper VS.. Parsons, 40 \. ):
!. Rep. 4, where it was contenfed that the WORD
towns did not embrace "cities, the court
said, in part: "W hen we ind that the adoption
OF the narrow Specification OF the term used
will lead 10 positive absurdlty, and that the re-
ceptiou of the word in its wider import Is at
tended with the Establishment of rule OF pub
lie policy both wise ana salutary, II is not diff
cult to make q choice between the alternatives.
In both these cases the narrow construction
would have operated TO defeat great reform,
and the broad construction adopted by the court
facilitated the reform. II the courts OF Cali
fornia am New Jersey had placed themselves III
antagOuism TO the other branches OF those gov
ernments by adopting the narrow views urged
upon them by persons who were interested IN
perDetuating fragrant abuses, they could have
rendered futile the honest efforts OF the law
remedy existing evils.