The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-10
RULE FOR TIDE LANDS
State Commission Decides a
Ballard Contest.
WILL BECOME LEADING CASE
Lines to Waterway Determined by
General Line and Location of
Upland Boundary.

a leading case in the matter of applica-
tons 70 purchase tide lands was decided by
the state land commission in the week just
closed in Walter p. Sanderson vs. Thomas
Winsor and Ida Winsor. Sanderson ap-
piled TO purchase the east 30 IS feet of lot
T. all OF lots 5. S. :, and 9. and the west 70 s
feet OF lot 10. all in block g. Ballard tide
lands. and the Winsors TO purchase a part
OF lots :. &. and 10 block 9. part Of what
Is marked on the tide land plats as Fourth
avenue west. BY stipulation Il was agreed
that contestant and contestee were owners
Of adjoining uplands. together with all lit
torai and riparian rights. ard the right 20
purchase from the state all tide lands abut-
ting the uPlands.
The Question at Issue.
The ruling Of the commission states that
as the act Of March %. 1890 and 1885. de
claTes that owners Of lands abutting on tide
lands Of the first class shall have a pre-
ference right 20 apply for purchase Of all
or any part OF he tide lands IN front Of
the lands So owned ii Is apparent that II
the lands fl contest lie in front Of both
applicants. neither is entitled % the whole,
and some means OF equitable partition must
b. found. The question al issue bore chief
" on the right OF access 70 a public water
Way across tide fs-s and the proportion %
the lines of access 10 the shore line own
ershiP. and the right 70 purchase submerg-
cd or tide lands
After a consideration Of the authorities.
notably that laid down by the supreme
court OF Massachusetts In Dearborn vs..
Arnes. y Pick. 45-f6., affirmed by the United
States supreme court. the opinion OF the
commission concludes:
General Line and Mcanders.
Following the rule which declares that
g. ascertain the extent Of each proprietor
title on the shore margin. the general lne
ought II be taken. Ne may adopt the de-
e-slon ~ The supre ne court Of Michigan
IN Blodgett and DAVIS Lumber CO. Us, P
ters. The text q that decision applies 70
th.s case where i' saws. The line should
embrace the general available line II he
shore This - exactly what the meau9@Ts
run hy tae rpit~S States government 10
The lines are run stTa GIT. dtsregari!1g
E+t1'at'ans and projections. which ara
not available for any general useful pur-
pose The shore line IN this case is a me-
anrer line q the government survey. art
~a have hE thar survey the available Inc
n0- elongated hy deep indentati0ns or loac
projections Having thus secured a rule
far the general shore line. the next Qu=s-
t.on IS bow should ire projections Or made
- The line = the waterway n salmon bay
which represents. as < were the raw shore
zine n those cases where The question : one
merely % .al,uv.al Increment
Extensions TO the Waterway.
The rule is. the line should Be extended
as nearly as possible az right angles Slta
the general line AMI parallel % -Ae SIDE
boundary lines 81 the upland. - as 20 giva
each riparian proprietor - nearly The sans
w.Ith az The waterway line as h. holds on
tAs shore or general lire G9 Mlch- -. N
ths ease q Sandersoa IS WlDsor, the rule
% atv.s4oC should Be-: Divide the distance
uIan the line 81 the salmon Bay water1FaH
embraced u the applications Of said san
dersol and Wlns0r. into az may equal por-
tons As those contained IN the general line
IN from; ~ them. and theD draw straight
tines from the point AZ whlch the boundary
line between the uplands. when projected,
in.ersec.s Tire general line % he points
sags determined as points % 6slssoI-s