The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-15
THE SHORE OWNERS.
They Have No Right to Tide
Lands in Front of Them.
4 SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Their Privilege In Regard 70 Purchase
Does Not Give Them Control Over
the Flats at Present.

OLYMPIA, March IL. Especial - A
highly important decision relative to the
tide lands of the state, and the rights of
wharf-owners, ETC., was delivered today by
the supreme court, all of the judges con-
curing except Judge Stiles. It was the
case OF Eisenbach ct al. vs.. E. Hatfield, on
appeal from the superior court of Pierce
county and involved property to the value
OF hundreds of thousands Of dollars, prin-
cipally in Tacoma and Seattle.
The supreme court in this case was called
upon for the first time to determine the
rights Of littoral proprietors Of lands
aoutting upon the shore of an arm of the
sea in which the tide Gibbs and flows. Tho
court. after referring to q number of cases
cited by the counsel, and reviewing many
decisions, says:
Ieads us TO the conclusion that the riparian pro-
prietors OF the shores of navigable waters of the
state have no special or peculiar rights therein
wise would be to deny the power of the state to
for the public good.
right to build wharves and other structures
upon its public waters in aid of navigation
without the consent of the adjoining
OF self-developmcnt which every government Is
supposed to possess-a proposition to which we
cannot assent Nor do we think this view in
state, but, on the contrary, we believe it is in
strict harmony with it when all its parts are
construed together We cannot think that the
building .h oy the state Or It's grantees Of wharves
siitnte either taking or damaging of private
property for public use in the contemplation Of
the constitution The next question 70 be con-
sidered 10 by what right II any, do the appel
lants occupy the shore in front of the ap-
peiiees? In considering this question it
must be remembered that the demurrer in
valuable improvements-jn actual use for COM
merce, trade and business, and that said inn
provements were on said lands on March 26,
1880 the date OF the passage Of the tide land act
that said lands are within one mile of the cor
porate limits of the city of Tacoma; that the
harbor lines have not been fixed opposite to
posed Of by the state. The appellee has never
erected any improvements on the shore but
claims that the appellants are trespassers and
That as against them he Is entitled to relief by
On the other hand the appellants claim to be
rightfuily IN possession OF the disputed lands
mentioned. Section II of this act provides that
1.-THE owner or owners of any lands AUDITING or
fronting upon or bounded by the shore of the
water shall rsh
following the fling of the final appraisal OF
the tidelands to purchase all or any part of the
tuelanus III 'front.' OF lan0S 30 owned; provided,
that II valuable Improvements in actual use for
commerce, trade or business have been made
upon said tidelands by any person, association
or corporation, the owner or owners of such inn
provements shall have the exclusive right to
purchase land so improved for the period afore-
said: provided, that nothing in this act shall be
SO construed to apply to any improvement made
after the passage Of this act"
. We think by fair construction of this stat
ute that the appellants are rightfully in posses
sion OF the disputed premises and have q right
to maintain their improvements as they were on
March rs, 1880, but that they have no right to
enlarge their erections prior to such time al
they may be authorized to purchase the lands
from the state. For the foregoing reasons the
judgment of the court below 10 reversed and
cause remanded for further proceedings in &C.
cordance with this opinion.