The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-09-01
AGAINST THE SCRIP.
Land Office Rejects Hosmer's
Water Front Filing.
THE LAND NOT SURVEYED.
vrart 90 seeare strip Between Two
Neander Lines Fsifs-Archftset
sues for His Fss.

lie EGftEF0Es1 HLNtV Ott Ea SAs&Sh44tty
able strip Of land along the shore of Elliott
bay. in the very heart Of the city. This
lsnd il described IS starting from a point
N lot 3. OF block /, in Terry's Third add
zion. near the corner of Front and Marion
streets. IN the block Of land covered by the
Cogrnan building. and extending in q
northxesteriy direction, gradually widen
iug. until II reaches point In block ID OF
Depny's Fourth addition, between Seneca
and University streets. near the Arlington
hotel. at this point the strip is widest.
having attained q width of ninety feet;
thence IL gradually narrows to point
near the corner Of Lenora and Water
streets, ell of the strip being in the cor
porate limits of the city. This strip Is
covered with buildings, docks. warehouses
and other substantial improvements to
the value of many thousands Of dollars.
Addison A. Hosmer FIRST applied 70 io-
cate the scrip on July 1. 1850, but the APP
plication was refused on July 10, 1889. and
the scrip returned. An appeal was taken
10 the commissioner Of the general land
Office and the rejection by the local Office
sustained. In course Of the decision the
commissioner stated the facts OF the case
as follows:
ssThc original survey OF township Is
north, range 4 east, was approved by the
Surveyor general January "a, 1856. Prior
10 this date A. A. Denny had hied With the
register and receiver notification of settle
mert on public lands not yet surveyed,
bat which by the description accompany
Ing his notification covered the land in
controversy.
April 10, 1856, some two months and
half after the approval Of the survey
Denny filed In your Office second Motif
cation of his claim to donation of $50
acres Of land. designated as parts of sec
tons 81 aud 50. in tosnship % north. range
4 east, which also covered the land In dis
pute. The survey OF Denny's donation
claim was made by the government No
vember ., 1850, and duly approved. IL
seems that the rneander line az run by
this last survey did not follow the water
front OF Eilioft's bay rs closely as did the
line OF the original survey and II is upon
this little strip Of land, containing some
thing over two acres, between the lines of
the two surveys that Mr.. Hosmer has APP
pied TO locate the Porteriicld scrip as
above described.
s'under the act said scrip 10 locatable
only upon surveyed lands, and as n COM
pliance with this condition the applicant
for the location of the scrip CLAIMS that
the two surveys referred to constitute =
sufficient survey OF the tract applied for
This proposition you deny for good and
sufficient reasons. Both surveys alluded
TO were made for the same purpose and
upon the same basis of authority. They
could not both exist at one and the same
time representing an official survey OF the
water front OF Elliott bay by the govern
faent, but the old survey must give way 10
the new aud become as efiectualIy abro-
gated as If IL had never been made.
The line Of the new survey defines the
Wster front of the bag. The plat of said
survey does not represent any land be-
tween the meander line and the bay. and
II any did really exist ii is unsurveyed and
not subject TO location by Porterteid scrip
under the provisions Of the act regulating
the same"
When in due course the matter was pro-
scented on appeal TO the secretary of the
interior he found that there were numer-
Gus parties interested entitled TO be heard,
and directed full and complete inyesti-
CATION ic the nature Of q rehearlng to be
had before the local Office TO determine the
true status OF the tract applied for.
This hearing was held as directed, CON-
mencing April Is. 1898, at which time all
parties appeared either by attorney or in
person and il is on testimony introduced
at this hearing that the decision was
rendered by the register and receiver Of
the local land Office yesterday. This de-
cision is quite lengthy and goes into the
minute details of the question. 1t explains
fully the nature and purpose OF the me
ander lines run py the government, and
goes on TO say:
III has been frequently held by both
Federal and state courts that such meander
lines are intent ed only for the purpose of
bounding and AUDITING lands granted
upon the waters whose margin is thus
meandered and that the waters themselves
are the real boundary. Meander lines are
run in surveying fractional portions of the
public land bordering upon nayigable
rivers. not as boundaries of the tracts, but
for the purpose of defining the sinuosities
OF the banks OF the stream and how much
of the land in the fraction is subject TO
sale. In preparing the official plat
from the field notes the meander line Is
represented as the border line of the
stream and shows To a demonstrators that
the water course and not the meander line
Is actually run on the land is the bound
arg, Ii has never been held that the
banks under water in front of such grants
are reserved TO the United States. or that
they can be atterwArd granted ont to other
persons 10 the injury of the original
grantees. With regard 10 the grants of
the government for lands bordering on
tide water. IL has been distinctly settled
that they extend only To high water mark. F"
Hardin VS.. Jordan. 40 U. s.. $50. Pol
lard We. Hsgan. 3 Howard, 2i2. and Man
chester vs. the state of Massachusetts, 1870
Z, s, go. are cited a. authorities. The
decision then continues:
with these authorities thus settling
the question we must further ind that.
said tract being, as before stated, below the
hne Of high water mark, 10 not land that
can be sold or conveyed by the United
ftaies. but IL is, and was At the time of
sne application OF Hosmer 20 locate his
scrip thereon. reserved for the hsnent Of
the future state. That IL . now state
iand, subject To disposition only under the
constitution and laws Of the state OF Wash
snktor. and that the interior department
has no right or authority 10 entertain an
application therefor.
In our minds the present application
further objectionable for the reason that
IRE tract Is unsurveyed. The necessary
incidents OF = survey are designation OF
we boundaries, fixing OF monuments and
ejaculation of area; neither Of these neces-
saSies for Suryev have been done by the
tnitcd States. Porterheld scrip, hy the
terms Of the act authorizing its issuance.
- only locasabse on surveyed pubic lands
OF the United States. The stylp herein
applied for - not Pablo land of the
talled States and is not surveyed. The
application must therefore be refused.
TT NJ RFEn in Register