The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-22
FOR THE SHIP CANAL.
Army Engineers to Visit Lake
Washington in August.
HARBoR LINE LITIGATION.
Letter on Exact Status Read Before
Chamber OF Commerce Trustees
Single Freight Rates.

At yesterdays meeting of the Chamber of
Commerce A. ". Brookes, A. p. Burwell, W. K.
Ballard, Senator W. 4. Forrest, Major James f.
Hayden, DIR. T.. c. Kilbourne. Thomas W.
Prosch, Colonel C. NJ. Sheafe. E. +.
Whittier and Joshua n. Wrestling were
present. Announcement was made that
the army engineers in charge of the survey for
the Lake Washington ship canal would visit the
city in August letter was read from ex-Gov-
ernor Eugene semple giving the present state of
the harbor line litigation, a report from Colonel
c. NJ. Sheafe on freight rates on shingles, and
several minor reports.
SHIP CANAL ENGINEERS
The following letter was read from Captain
Thomas W. Symons, of Portland, in charge of
the United states army engineering work on
the Sound:
Colonel Mendall has forwarded to me and
asked me to acknowledge the receipt of docu-
ments sent to him pertaining to the Lake Wash
ington ship canal 1t is probable.thst the board
viii again visit Seattle in connection with the
work some ii me during the frst part OF August.
HARBoR LINE MATTERS
At the last meeting of the chamber a commit
tee, consisting of f. W. Wald, Theodore NJ.
Daulton and James K Bothell, was appointed
TO wait on the harbor line commission and as
certain the reasons for the delay in the settle
ment of the lines for Seattle harbor. The com
mittee presented as it's report the following let
ter from Ex-Governor Eugene Semple, who has
special charge of the work here at Seattle.
Replying to your communication of July in
regard TO the matter OF expediting the location
OF harbor lines in the Seattle harbor, have the
honor to make reply as follows:
The surveys and maps nave been completed so
Tar as the frontage of the city Elliott bay aud
Puget sound as it existed at the date of the
completion of the maps last fall are concerned,
and the harbor lines were agreed upon by the
commission and depicted upon the maps by its
engineer. At that stage of the proceedings, as
par cd
10 by certain parties, and writs of
prohibition were issued, which enforced a sus-
pension OF operations. As the legal questions
raised by these suits went to the foundation of
the matter, and as the decision of the superior
court OF King county completely nullifed the
constitution and laws OF the state in regard to
the tide and shore lands, the commission con-
Guided that until the opinion OF the supreme
court was obtained il would not be justified in
proceeding further As the writs of prohibition
mentioned are still in force at Seattle, will de-
tail for your Information the present status of
all litigation in which the Seattle harbor line
commission Is a party.
In the case OF II. J.. Yesler VS.. Harbor Line
Commission. the supreme court has recently
handed down an opinion in which the position
taken by the hartor line commission appears to
be fully sustained. That position was: THAT the
state, by virtue OF its inherent sovereignty, took,
Immediately upon its admission TO the Union,
clear and unincumbered title to the shores and
beds of all nayigabie waters within its jurisdic-
tion, with fnA power to deal Herewith as IL
should please. IL any structure or improve
ment be found thereon, the person In posses
sson OF the same must deal with the state from
the standpoint OF a trespasser. He has no legal
rights ana no technical equities"
Under the rules of the supreme court a party
against whom judgment is rendered has thirty
days within which to move for rehearng, and
until the expiration of that time a remittur
will not issue Until the mandate OF the SUI
preme court is received by the superior court
and proceedings are had hereunder, the writ of
prohibition remains in force.
As the policy of the promoters of this litiga-
ton has heretofore been that OF delay, and as
there is no reason for supposng that their policy
Will now be changed, their plan will probably be
to file their motion for rehearing near the end of
the time limited and during the summer vaea-
ton, in hopes that it cannot be heard until the
October term.
They will then, in case the petition is denied,
file notice of appeal to the United States SUI
premc court, having ten days time within
which to do so. If it should be held that such
appeal would operate to stay the remittur, then
discourse the writ OF prohibition would remain
In force, pending the appeal. do not think the
United States supreme court will hear the case
on the merits, but the state will have TO appear
10 move the dismissal OF the appeal, which will
consume several months OF time.
In tie case of the Seattle Terminal Railway &
Elevator Company va. Harbor Line Commission,
in which the question of the western boundary
line OF the city is concerned, aud in which the
superior court held against the position taken
by the commissioners, no Judgment has as yet
been recorded. have several times requested
the plaintiffs attorneys and agents to formulate
the Judgment and have their engineers con-
struct line in accordance with the findings of
the court, but they nave paid no attention to the
requests. The commissioners have no desire to
appeal this case, as of course they can have no
interest in the locality OF the city boundary. and
are glad to have all such responsibility assumed
by the court, but there were other questions
raised in the case. and until the judgment has
been entered and rendered certain, do not
deem 1t prudent to state that no appeal Will BE-
taken.
In the case of the Columbia & Puget Sound
Rail Dad Company VS. Harbor Line Commission,
the transcript on appeal TO the state supreme
brief about a month ago, but no brief has yet
been filed by the respondents.
In the case of the Slimson Mill Company VS..
Harbor Line Commi Ssion, transcript on appeal
has been prepared, but no briefs have yet been
filed.
Both of these cases are substantially parallel
with H. l. Yesler vs. Harbor Line Commission,
aud must follow that case in the ultimate de-
cison, but in both eases by resisting the steps
that must be necessarily taken to secure the re-
suits, officially, the respondents can produce
delay.
The case of the Seattle, Lake Shore 4 Eastern
railroad VS.. Harbor Line Commission, which
was argued anu submitted in the superior court
OF King county December Is. 1890, was then
taken under ndvisement by the judge, and Is
still in his breast This long delay Is in appar-
ent contempt OF section 10 artiie iv. of the con-
sutution of Washington, but the commission
does not consider II incumbent upon them to
invoke the processes or a higher court TO compel
the superior court of King county TO perform It's
DUTY. Here, IL viii be seen, is an opportunity
for indefinite delay, for no appeal can be taken
until judgment 10 rendered, and IN the mean-
time the alternative writ OF prohibition remains
in force.
The case OF Sigismund Schwabacher ct al. vs.
Harbor Line Commission, in the United States
court. was indefinitely continued last fall by
consent OF counsel To await the issues OF the
eases in the state courts. Both sides are now
willing TO take this case up, and have just been
informed by Mr.. Carr, of counsel for plaintiff,
that he VIII argue the case on Il week notice at
any time this month. The attorney general
also writes me thai he is DESTROYS OF expediting
the matter. so the case will probably soon be
heard. An appeal will be taken 10 the United
states supreme court in any event
In this case the alternative writ runs not only
against the commissioners, but against the city
clerk TO prevent him from receiving the maps II
the commissioners should offer 20 file il in con-
tempt OF the order OF this court.
This Is a succiuct statement OF the condition
OF the litigation, and give il in order that you
may DC able 20 judge whether not the failure
70 ME the maps il due 20 the ''obsUnacy OF the
haTbor liue commission, as one OF the members
OF your chamber ia quoted as saying.
In regard to your request that the map
shouid be nied as 10 those parts of the haroor
where there is no existing litigation, l submit
that II would not be proper, in view OF the cir
Sut nIsss, 70 ne any map except a!ter uue
public notice had been given OF such intention.
IL the hatbor line commission should give no
uce OF such intention, / submit that IL is rea-
sonaole 10 suppose that every man whose inter.
ests would be affected thereby would instantly
sue out wit in the United States court. At
present interested parties are awaiting the de-
cisions ia the pending cases, but II IL was
thought That the maps would be filed over their
peTprestures before II final determination OF the
questions involved, they would uncouhtedly
rush into the courts aud IA vast amount of very
expensive and totally useless litigation would
result
Your committee having requested me 20 ex-
pedite the additional field WORK neccssitated By
ths recent addition of territory TO the city OF
seattle, stated that such Was my desire aud
! that would urge the matter upon the commits
sieners al ITS next monthly meeting accord