The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-03-15
Records Vouch for Fairness In Trans
actions Connected Herewith.
WAe Only sought % BsneAt the Com.
msreial lntsrests Of the state-Ene.
niss ef ssetisa Can Flaa Ne Tlav.


The Spokane Review and other papers
have gone to the length OF intimating that
the harbor line section was incorporated
in the bill by fraud. and it has been inti-
mated that Gov. McGraw was q party to an
alleged conspiracy to defeat by irregular
methods those who prevented the consider
alton of haroor line bill during the clos
ing hours Of the session. 1t is understood
that Attorney General Jones, who fought
the harbor line bill in the last night, has
been imputing improper motives and acts
to those who desired to see the bill en-
acted, but the assertions attributed to him
are entirely unwarranted, - the records Of
both houses show.
The att sck upon Gov. NcGraw has been
especia lily unjust, ~ his only object In
favoring the passage of q harbor line bill
was to promote the commercial interests
of the state. and his sole connection with
the matter was to urge upon the members
the necessity for making provision for the
establishment of harbor lines and water
ways at Seattle and Tacoma. As his ad-
vice was not acted upon. and harbor line
bill pure and simple failed to pass. is
it a misfortune that in another
measure which was enacted is contained
provision which was expected to
be effective, when the need of an active
harbor line commission no longer existed,
but which nevertheless meets the present
exigency? Those who drafted state land
commission bill No. 26oh expected har-
Dor line bill to be passed, but that 1t would
provide only for limited existence of the
harbor line commission. To provide,
therefore, for the control Of harbors. after
the harbor line board should have per.
formed its work and passed away
by limitation Of law, Sec
ton was provided in senate bill
No. 1904 giving the state land board the
powers of harbor lire commission when.
ever no other board vested with such pow
ers existed in the state. 1t was q
wise provision even in view of
its limited original intent, but
the trainers of it builded better
than they knew for it has rendered barren
the triumph of those who labored success
fully to obstr uct tbs passage of the meas
ure prepared for the purpose of closing up
the work of establishing the harbor lines
of the state.
That the statements made by these men
in their discontinue and by newspapers
that sympathize with them relative to the
methods employed to put senate bill No.
26OX in its present form are unjustifiable
and mere fabrications. is shown by the
following statement made this evening by
Chief Clerk Nicklin, of the house, vino
bases what he says on the legislative
records:
have examined the house and senate Jour.
mails very arelully with reference to the action
taken in each house on s. B. No 26OlS, and have
compared the several amendments adopted with
the enrolled bill l find the bill was regularly
passed in each branch. every necessary step hav-
ing been taken. l find also that the enrolled
bill contains only such matter a. was properly
incorporated in it. and that the
committee that reported it a. q substitu te.
except in the particulars in which it was in duo
form and by vote amended. The bill IL correct
in every respect My statement can be verified
by any one who will take the trouble to examine
the journals.
This statement effectually disposes of
the claim that the bill was tampered with.
The argument advanced by the opponents
Of the harbor line bill, that senate bill No.
2GO1 was not properly introduced.
as it was reported to tho senate as a
substitute within less than ten DAYS of
the end OF the session. is no longer ad-
vanced seriously by anybody. The prop
osition that . substitute bill reported by
committee is not an original bill.
and, therefore, is not governed
by the constitutional provision
relative to the introduction Of bills on the
last ten days ofthe session. is ably sustained
by decision of the Michigan supreme court
in the case of Common wealth vs.. Ames.
Senator Richards, who was one Of the
first to raise the question as to the
legal introduction of the bill, has had the
journals searched for flaws in its passage
or amendment, but gets no comfort from
the investigation for himself or the other
members Of the old com mission who an.
tagonized the proposition to create a new
one.
A question has been raised by the ene-
mics of Seattle as to the legality of the
section of the state university act m.
propriating to the university 100000
acres of the grant by con-
gress for charitable, educational.
penal and reformatory institutions.
The argument advanced is that seventy.
two sections having been originally
granted for university purposes the uni
versity Is excluded from a share in the
other grant. The argument is unsond, a
the enabling act does not so exclude
the university. but even if the
proposition had force, it would puzzle
these objectors to discover a way by which
the legislature could be prevented from an.
por,ioning the lands in question as
it deemed best The grant to the
state is irrevocable and the
United States has no longer any
control whatever over them and no inter.
est in them. But even if it be conceded
that the right of the legislature to deal
with the lands is limited by the provis.
ions Of the grant in the enabling
act, the language OF the grant leaves no
room for doubt as to the power of the
legislature to set apart to the use of the
university the lands it has 90 appor.
toned. The grant Of 10000 acres TO,
charitable. educational. penal and refor.
matory institutions is broad and unlimited
except TO the objects named, and the set.
ting apart Of . portion OF it for the uni.
versity is clearly compliance with its
terms.
State Printer White will contest the
proposition Of the Worlds fair commits.
sion to let the contract for printing the
Worlds fair pamphlets to private parties,