The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-30
NO FEDERAL ISSUE.
Supreme Court Decision i'm the
Yesier HarbOr Line Case.
THE STATE COURT RULED WELL.
Relator's Rights Are Not Infringed, and
IL Not for United States Court.

OLYMPIA. Dec. 9.-TSpecial. l-Attornev
General Jones received today the full text
OF the opinion the United States supreme
court in the Yesler harbor line case. The
opinion, which is by Chief Justice Fuller,
states the averment of ownership by Iesier
OF the water front property in question
ana points out that the relator. Iesler,
did not by such allegation specially claim
title, right, privilege or immunity I'M
der the constitution, or statute of or au.
thority exercised under the United States.
Only in the argument OF the case was il
stated that Yesler acquired the property
under the donation act, and it was not al
legged in the PETITION, it is held at the out
set. that th1 Jurisdiction of the supreme
court In the case cannot be rested upon a
denial by state court of right claimed,
as to ownership, by an act of congress.
The question whether the contemplated
action Of the harbor line commission in
establishing harbor line at Seattle would
be IN conflict with the river and
harbor legislation of congress is next
considered. This legislation torbids the
construction of buildings outside of har-
Dor lines SO as to obstruct navigation or
anchorage, and authorizes the secretary
OF war to establish harbor lines. On this
point the court says:
We do not understand that any conflict of
jurisdiction over the regulation OF the harbor
OF Seattle viii be precipitated by what the de-
PENDANTS propose 10 do, or that relator could
sustain his invocation OF judicial interference
such theory. II the loca ion and establishment
OF hArbor lines by these commissioners is
actually in violation of the laws OF the United
IN n. cit tn
the general government ii is obvious that the
decision of the state court in this regard va
NOT against any title or right OF rela;or arising
under = statute OF the United States.
The court then proceeds to dispose of
the leading question in case, whether the
contemplated proceedings would deprive
lesler OF his property without due process
OF law. After reviewing the provisions of
the state and federal constitutions on the
subject and the state legislation relative
to harbor lines under which it was at
tempted to establish a harbor line across
relatcr's wharf. to which he objected on
the ground that it would deprive him of
the portion of his property in the reserved
strip without due process of law, the court
says:
Assuming our jurisdiction to revise the judg-
ment OF a state tribunal in upholding a law
authorizing the taking of private property with
out compensation to be unQuestionable, We
cannot accede to the position that
the action of the harbor line COM
missioners in locating the harbor line,
and filing the plat. would take any of REALTORS
property or so injuriously affect it as to come
within the constitutional inhibition. The
filing of maps OF definite location
In the exercise of the power OF
eminent domain furnishes no analogy
The design of the state law is TO
prohibit the epcroachment by private indiyid-
uals and corporations of navigabe waters, and
70 secure a uniform water front; and it does not
appear from REALTORS application that the de-
PENDANTS have threate 2ed in any manner to dis
turb him III bis possession. nor that which is
proposed to be done tends 10 produce that
effect. Whatever his rights, they remained
the same after before, and the
proceedings, as the supreme court said
could not operate to constitute a cloud upon
them from the standpoint of rciator himself, for
IL nothing further could be lawfully done in the
absence OF Legislation for hs protection that
was apparent The consequences which he
deprecated were too remote 10 form the
basis of decision. Whatever private rights
or property he has by virtue of the Territorial
act OF le5i. or Of the state act OF $780, whatever
his right or access TO nayiga waters or TO con-
struct wharf from his own land. we do not
the action he has sought To prohibit 1t
may be true that the width OF the reserved
strip az delinested on the map brings the inner
line across the outer end Of REALTORS wharf, in
respect OF which. as If it were the harbor line
he complains that his right under the set OF
March 9, 1890, TO purchase the ground OCCUPIED
by his Improvements would be inieriered with:
but the construction of that act is for the state
court to determine, and the averments OF the
affidavit and alternative writ make no issue
upon ii as affected by the constitutional pro-
visions The commissioners TO locate
and establish harbor lines, whereupon
the area between the harbor line and the
line of ordinary high tine within not less than
fifty, more than 600 feet OF the narbor line,
is reserved under the state constitution
Whether the end OF reintors wharf is within
that area aud the consequent effect the record
does not call upon Us to consider.
The opinion concludes:
II may be properly added that the decision of
the supreme court indicates that in its opinion
relaior was not emitted to the writ of prob BIZ
ton, because h had other remedies of which
he might have ayaied himself This was
ground broad enough TO sustain the Judgment
Irrespective o. the decision of any federal
question If such arose: but We have con-
sldered the case in the other aspect as
the ruling OF the supreme. court in this
regard is perhaps not sufficiently definite
for US justly 10 decline jurisdiction upon that
ground. Oar conclusion is that TO federal
G question WAS 80 raised upon this record as TO
justify our ipterp9siuon, and therefore the writ
OF erro. IS dismissed
The state harbor line commission will
expire by limitation OF law on January II.
nnless an act il passed prior TO that date
extending its life. Owing 10 litigation
over the establishment OF the harbor lines
and from other causes the work for which
the commission was created has not been
and its continuance Is there
fore necessity.
AN INTERESTING LAND CONTEST.