The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-16

sion Of the esxritorial government to erect
wharves upon shore lande must be pregumed 70
have known the limited character 81 ~ jur's-
The question Of the existsncs ef N actual
equity Ii one with which the copffs have pofh-
ing 70 40 The esp on. @a y Z
must take what Il chooses 70 give. The iegis-
laturs alone can deal with the question, vhich,
SO far a. the actual equity 10 concerned. IL oss
equity on the part of defendants in error exists.
So far a. our Investigation has proceeded the
equity IL on the side Of the state, and those who
Ss r ..sn,. tn; the hni s. sDa III. Ct
sioners, because they. have endeavored to
faithfully execute the plain intent OF the peo-
ss Of the state IN rsss1u % nan1r .,
ing tohold on, BY hook or crook, to their Illegal
possessions, and TO turn into their own pockets
vast profits which properly belong % the people ,
tie docks amount 10 several times the cost Of the
structures and the maintai9ers Of those pur-
prestures having enjoyed such rentals for many
years should not now be heard to urge any
actual equity in their cases. Therefore, a. the
act of 1854 was the act OF body having no power
to deal with the question, except by sufferance,
technical equities by reason Of said enactment.
The power of the people Of Warrington 70 deal
with the question, both BY their constitutional
convention and by their legislature, was perfect
6ixth-Does the statute Of the state, approved
March IS, 1890 give TO defendants in error any
equities or legal rights which must remain un-
affected by the act creating board q nsrDo DOT
define public ways for water craft, ETC., both ap-
proved March %, 1890?
In claiming under the act OF the Legislature OF
the state, approved March &c. 1880, defendants In
error recognize the only power through which,
in our estimation, any title 70 shore lands, or
the lands under the nayigable waters OF the
does the statutes relied upon give Them any
rights in these premisesf Defendants in error
probably rely upon ths pToyso 70 article KILL
and section ii Of the act approved
March rs, 1890, for their claim
as grantees of the state. How such q claim
De made sId " s1s II
In the constitution and the law, appears eng
NAUTICAL to Us in the highest degree. The con-
stisutional convention and the legislature seems
to have had the shore lands, and the lands UNI
der the waters, especially in charge, and to have
been determined that the state should not be de.
spoiled of them, AZ the states OF California ana
Oregon had been. The constitution asserts III
rights to, and dominion over, these lands; an as
sertion that was not necessary, since the state
takes by virtue OF its sovereignty, but which
state knew its rights and was determined TO
maintain them. Il is further asserted in the
schedule, section 2, that no law of the territory
granting such lands 10 INDIVIDUALS or corpora
The legislature was equally emphatic, and IN
the act OF March 26, 1890. which regulates the
methods of disposition OF the shore lands, pro,
hibits the inauguration of the processes until
the extent of the reservations for purposes OF
state control of harbors has been determined
In other words, the state tide land commission
ers and local board of appraisers cannot act
until the harbor line commissioners have acted
The policy of state control of the harbors OF all
commercial cities having been determined upon,
nothing was to be allowed to impair 1t. Yet IN
the face of the plain intention, as indicated by
the debates in the constitutional convention,
and the emphasis of the language of the con-
stitution and the laws BY which that
intention was effectuated, defendants In error
come into this court and claim as grantees oil
contains IN the first section foroible disclaimer
of such intention; and. a. il to further fortify
the position of the harbor hne act, 1t is made to
appear approved subsequent 70 the tide land act,
so that every doubt of the intention should dis
appear. Every circumstance points In the one
direction.
1t seems to US, therefore, from full considera-
ton of the premises, that the conclusion must
be that all rights of defendants in error sub
ject to the plainly avowed intention of tbs state
TO take and maintain control OF the harbors OF all
commercial cities and towns, and that
state in making such reservations as
are required for harbor line purposes.
The constitution is paramount, and even as be
tween the acts of the legislature, the acts Great
ing the harbor line commission and providing
for public ways for water craft, are OF superior
authority to the act of disposing OF tide and
shore lands, account OF the later date OF their
approval We conclude. therefore, that all rights
granted to- or equities recognized in, defend Is
in error, by act of March 26, 1880, are aubordi-
clared in it's constitution and laws, in regard to
harbors and waterways, and cannot be asserted
until the harbor lines and waterways have been
located and established.