The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-06
CITIES AND TOWNS,
Extent of HarbOr Line Commits
siOn's Authority.
CASE INVOLVING BALLARD.
Question Whether the Lines Can Be
Located Before TOwns-Interpre-
tation of the Law.

The brief of Ex-Governor Eugene Semple,
counsel for the state harbor line commission,
in the case OF the Stimson Mill Company, ap-
pea,ed to the supreme court, has been pup
lished. The case arose through the action OF
the commission in taking steps toward aging
the harbor lines at Ballard. The issues are
stated as follows:
First-Is the writ of prohibition proper rem
edy in the premises?
Second-Would an act of the harbor line CON-
mlssioners locating harbor lines IN the haroor
OF Ballard, as alleged in the petition, be WIFI
out the scope OF their authority?
lhird-Has respondent 1.-THE mill company
any riparian or Httoral rights against the
state, in the shore lands or in the lands under
the navgaole waters OF the state By virtue OF
its ownership OF the upland?
Fourth-Did the territorial statute OF 1884 give
the respondent any equities or legal rights
which must remain unaffected by articles 10
ami 10 OF the constitution OF the state?
Eifth-Does the statute of the state, approved
March &c, 1890, entitled IAN act for the appraIs
ing and disposing OF the tide and shore lands
belonging to the state of Washington, give 10
respondent any equities or legal rights which
must remain unaffected by the act creating
board OF harbor line commissioners, and the act
TO establish public ways tor water craft, etc,
both approved March -, 1890?
These are the Old issues involved in the case
OF Henry l. Yesler against the commission, and
the state supreme court has already decided in
favor OF the commission. In the argument OF
this case in the court below, however, the mill
company contendet that act OF the harbor
line commissioners locating harbor lines in Bal
lard would be without the scope OF their
thority, because Ballard is incorporated
"town," while the constitution and laws only
contemplated the location of hacbor lines in
front of "cities." Accordingly this question
alone is argued in Mr. Semp.es brief. The mat
ter is of extreme interest for il involves the
right OF the commission TO continue the work OF
locating harbor lines at the various towns of
the state. The argument begins:
We take the position that in the constitution
and laws the words 'city" and town or
''cities' and towns" are used Interchangeable.
or practically as synonymous, the technical
meaning 10 be conveyed being municipal cor
porauon" or municipality"
Various definitions are quoted, and then the
argument comes to the state constitution. as
follows:
p A fair means OF interpreting an ambiguous
passage in a law or constitution is to cern pare
all the sections and endeayor 10 obtain the
meaning OF the parts from the context OF the
whole. Applying this rule to the constitution
OF Washington, We find that article Is,
which provides for the harbor line COM
mission, in hsectiOn /, uses the word
'city,' and in section municipal corpora
tion," clearly in the same relation Sections 6
anu 2, article s, use the words county. city,
town other municipal corp0ration:" section
u, article II, uses the words counties, Cities
towns or other municipal corporations" section
49, same article, uses the words county city,
town or other public or municipal corpora
tom" section ), article 10, uses the words ma
tional, state county municipal"
All these extracts so to show hat the consti-