The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-08-28
CAN USE THE WHARF.
One Corporation Enjoined From
Excluding Another.
JUDGE HANFoRp's DECISION.
4 Heavy Criminal Docket for the Sep
TENDER Term OF the Superior
Court-Ths Blotter.

Court-Ths Blotter.
Judge Hanford, Of the United States
court, yesterday granted an injunction to
the Oregon Short Line q Utah Northern
Railway Company to compel the Ilwaco
/ Railway 4 Navigation Company to allow
the steamboats, operated by the petitioner
10 make use Of wharf at Ilwaco owned
BIZ the defendant. The courts opinion.
which involves some interesting points of
lsv, Is as follows:
Dragon Short Line 4 Utah Northern Railway
Company ". Hwaco Railway 4 Navigation
Company.
In equity Suit for an injunction to compel the
dsiendant. q railway corporation and owner
OF wharf, TO allow Steamboats, operated BY
the complainant TO receive and discharge pas-
ssngers and freight upon said wharf. Iniunc-
ton granted.
Wv. Cotton. solicitor for complainant; c. W.
Fulton. solicitor for defendant
HAHyoRD. j.
The complainant's grievance 10 that the de-
fsndsnt, by its ownership of Q wharf at the
town OF Iwaco, extending into the nayigable
waters of Bakers bay, and by maintaining
thereon = railroad station and passenger depot,
appur;enaut TO Its line of railway, and BY max.
ing said wharf a landing place for steamboats,
owned and operated by the complainant to land
1t said wharf. imposes upon all passengers and
freight received by or discharged from its rail-
road 1t said station, the necessity OF being car.
ried 20 and from other places BY it, steamboats,,
or snfger Inconvenience In being carried to the
next station on the line Of said road; and has
thereby contrived 70 secure q monopoly In the
transportation of freight and passenger to and
from the station upon said wharf To prevent the
defendant from giving such undue preference
to its own steam boats and from 80 unjustly dis
eliminating against the complainant It prsys
that BY an Injunction the right to receive and
discharge passengers and freight upon and from
its steamboats, at said wharf may b enforced.
The complainant comedies the right of the de-
PENDANT ~ owner of said wharf to charge and
collect reasonable wharfage from al vessels
using the same, and consents that Whatever re-
lief may be granted TO it shall Be- upon equitable
may impose for the protection OF the dsfend-
ants righta
The defendants counsel In opposition to the
prayer OF the bill argues that by coneeding the
right to remuneration for the use of the wharf,
the bill itself raises an insurmountabls obstacle
In the way of obtaining An injunction. Il is said
that the fixing OF rates requires the mutual
assent OF the parties who are respectively to pay
and receive and involves the making of Q con-
their individual affairs, which 10 wholly beyond
the power Of the court This argument IL made
a. II the controversy affected natural persons
and individual rights only. But TO Judge
rightly, the parties must be placed In thsi. true
positions with relation to each other and TO the
public. The defendant IL . creature OF the state.
Both parties are servants and agents of the pub
lie endowed with certain attributes and powers
not possessed BY natural persons and q to all
matters affecting the performance of their duties
and obligations to the public they stand before
the court on . footing quite different from that
OF mere private individuals transacting business
affecting only thsmselvea
As . railroad company the defendant owes q
duty to the public to operate Its railway and
maintain stations for the convenience OF all
who require transportation over It. Il cannot,
with due regard to the character OF its line - .
quasi public highway, interfere with the COM
ing or going OF its patrons to or from any Of its
stations by whatsoever vessels or vehiclea may
be employed for the purpose; nor can any YES
Gel or vehicle Offering to serve the public by
carrying passengers or freight to and from q
railway station be discriminased against BY be-
ing excluded from sharing privileges allowed
to others, without depriving the people In gen.
eral of eonveniences and facilities which they
have right to enjoy. Hack Co. VI sootsms,
an. w. Rep, 667.l
As owner OF q. wharf extending into public
navigsbie waters the defendant 10 also beholden
to the state for the privilege or license enjoyed
by 1t in being permitted TO occupy the public
ground covered by said wharf, and for that rea-
son II owes Q further duty 70 the public to
maintain said wharf a. an aid to commerce and
navigation. Having voluntarily, BY its accept.
anca and enjoyment OF franchises
and privileges, assumed tho reciprocal obliga-
ton to serve the public, the defendant must
perform 1t. and the power Of the courts to en-
force performance Is ample. Even a. between
natural persons and In matters Of strictly indi-
vldual concern, when one person has assumed
toward another duty. although the contract
between them. from which the duty arises, be
incomplete aud lacking In essential elements OF
avalid contract, courts have power to compel
performance and to determine what particular
acts constitute performance. The courts have
power In enforcing contracts whenever nsces-
aary to the saving OF vested rights in any case,
to first givo q construction to the contract,
and In doing so 70 supply omissions
therein. In the case at bar the court IL
not called upon to do more In the way OF max
Ing contract for the parties, In order to grant
the injunction prayed for upon condition that
the complainant pay the defendant reasonable
wharfage, than would be necessary in giving .
Judgment upon Qud',ium Mruft, in favor OF q
lsborer for the value OF services rendered with
GU, aprevious request or promise to pay. or an
agreement fixing the rate of his wages. To tx
'he rate OF a PERSONS wages requires the assent
Of the one who Is to receive and OF tho one who
10 10 pay, and involves the making of Q contract
between individuals respecting matters per-
sonsl TO them. and therefore raises difficulties
for court To deal with, equal to any supposed to
ahect this case. aud yet for ages il has been the
rule IN the courts of this and the parent country
70 compel one who has knowingly permitted an.
other to serve him without any agreement Is TO
compensation therefor and who retains the
fruits OF such service, to pay Its value. III every
such case the court viii both imply . rsausat
aud promise and supply the omission BY fixing
definitely an amount Or rate of wages
further argument on the part OF the defend
ant s TO tho effect that the plaintiffs demand is
that OF rival 10 share in the Of Its terminal
grounds. complete answer TO this 10 to b
found IN the fact that the complainant has no
railroad line which can DO in any sense Q COM
psttor OF the defendants line and there is no
composition between these two corporations sx-
eept for steamboat traf1o. The complainant
does not ASK for permission TO use the defend
ants premises. except 10 the extent necessary to
secuIs for passengers and freight carried by its
ore Of the regular stations the line OF the de-
fsndsuts railway without being subjected To
inconvenience or expense. which passengers
sad freight arriving at and departing from tho
same stations by other steamboats, OF the same
Class are free from
The defendant has attempted 20 show - .
further ground for opposition 70 the granting of
The Injunction, that tho wharf 10 too slrall 10