The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1894-03-04
IMPORTANT DECISION
The Question Of Jurisdiction
In the Olsen Case.
JUDGE NC BRIDES OPINION
A Subject of Unusual Interest to
Residents of Both Oregon
and Washington.
JUDGE NC BRIDES OPINION

ljllue . uSciSiVh oli tiiS QuSStiOll VI JuIlS'
"diction raised in the Olsen case. It will
be found of unusual interest to owners
of traps and fishermen on both sides
of the river:
State Of Oregon VS. Christ 0lsen.-
Opinion of the Court:
The defendant is indicted under the
oregon statute Of 1891, for the ofrense
Of keeping his trap or pound net open
and in condition for fishing. during
the weekly close time, to-wit, On Sun
day.
Said statute provides that it shall be
a misdemeanor for any person to so
keep his trap open on Sunday anywhere
upon the Columbia river.
The evidence shows that the trap in
question is situated quite distance
north of the main ship channel of the
Columbia river, and clearly within the
territorial boundaries of the State of
Washington.
The motion is to discharge the de-
fendant upon the ground that The crime
having been committed beyond the
boundaries of this state, and the trap
In question being permanent structure
attached to piles or posts driven into
the bottom of the river, and therefore
into the soil of the state of Washington,
this court has no jurisdiction to try the
offense.
The motion is further urged upon the
ground that the state of Washington
has by law authorized the licensing of
fish traps or pound nets in the waters
of the Columbia river, and that the de-
fendant, having taken out his license
In pursuance Of such law, is protected
by said license,
The questions raised by this motion
are very delicate and difficult, and but
little light Is afforded the court by any
previous decisions, none of them having
ever been called upon to adjudicate pre-
cisely Il similar question to the one at
bar,
The statute In question in this case is
broad enough in its terms to embrace
any person fishing on Sunday by any
means anywhere on the Columbia river,
whether within or without the terri
torial boundaries of this state, and un-
less said statute is void as an INVASION |
Of the sovereignty of sister state, the
motion to discharge the defendant must
be overruled.
The act of congress admitting Oregon
into the union provides, among other
things, that the boundary between Ore
gon and Washington shall be the mid
die of the widest channel Of the Co
lumbia river, including jurisdiction Iii
civil and criminal cases on the Column
bia river concurrently with the states
and territories OF which said river forms
Il boundary, in common with said
sIate.h
A further section of said act Of adj
mission provides that the state of Ore
gon shall have concurrent jurisdiction
upon the Columbia and all other rivers
and waters bordering on state of Ore
gon SO far as they shall form COM
laoA boundary eto., and ali said rivers
and waters shall be common highways
forever free to all the inhabitants of
said state" etc.
1t is claimed for the defendant that
these sections of the act of admission,
Rhile they give jurisdiction in civil
and criminal cases on the Columbia
river, are only applicable to boats and
other craft floating or navigating said
river; that such jurisdiction is only
given to obviate the difficulty of prov
ing the venue of crime when it hap
pened to be committed on some craft (
floating on the waters OF the river and ]
to provide for other exigencies of like
nature; that the words on the Columbia
river should be construed to mean ]
i'fGating on the Columbia river or
the Colunbia river and /
Ihat such concurrent jurisdiction does !
pot attach on a. case of this kind, where s
he trap was In the nature Of a perIna- '
lept fixture driven into the bottom Of
The river; that in such a case trap be- {
ng attached to the realty becomes part 8
Of the soil Of Washington, and not sub
lect to our laws or regulations, and I
therefore no liability attaches by reason i
1f the same being kept open in viola I
.!9p Of the provisions Of our fishing a
avs r
Il is SAID with much force that If b
oregon cap regulate the fish traps on h
Lhe Columbia river that Washington s
ian regulate the Wharves Of Astoria h
la!Ad a!dd the net racks at SMITHS Eoint. and 0
"a levy taxes and licenses upon such
'tTnctures
While eonceding that this argument
IS plausible and entitled 10 serious con-
'ideration, am not prepared to admit
Us Correctness or TO concede that a a
contrary holding would necessarily lead I
70 the possible results predicted. !
These legislative grants of sovereign s
Z APE moi to b construed BY the same 0
harrow rules that would be applied to
2 deed or win. but should have broad
ana liberal Interpretation commensur- A
ale with their importance and the greati
.na diversified iPterfsts With which
ney deal,
"hat then. were the reasons for this n
ssaht Of concurrent iurisdiction9 0
answer. First. for the reason sug- =