The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-10

Plea Of the Lake shore Road
uarof4 Preston appeared for the recelv-
ers u me Seattle. Lake Shore & Eastern
lie said;
The receivers are conscious - Tire fact
that the sling in OF the ia. lands car hs
done more economically by Tire company it.
SELF TIE lake Shore owns the greater
portion ~ fke water frontage Of Smith
cove Il claims 70 own tire sandspit IN fee
simple a title superior 20 that ~ the state.
The question Of the title % the ssnGspit
has baeu Etsgated hy a number % actions
IN ire courts. beginning vifh ar action
brought IL 1870 IN the superior court"
NJ Preston here traced TIRE steps In the
Htiga tion leading up u the decision where
bg- the absolute title 70 the sandspit bad
been confirmed 70 the railroad company.
He said,
The issue Of title At the hearings vas
clearly presented. and al this time the re-
ceivers Of the road are in undiSputed pos
session Of the san1spft. under the judy
raent OF the court The waterway under
the contract cuts right through the prop
erfv and il IS not material what part Of
the saudspit is cut. We are not asking
YOU 10 adiudicate a case against the state.
But | do not think the governor. in the
face OF the facts presented. would feel JUS
tified in pluHging the state into litigaiio
Under the act of 1893 the contract IS re-
gardei as an entirety. for certainly the
waite the profitable part of the contract and
leave the Improbable part undone. II this
contract is signed and the lands adjoining
encountered by this exorbitant charge. the
railroad company would be unwilling 70
buy from the state its interest in that land.
IL is fair 10 presume that a Judgment in
case between the state and the company
would be the same as has already been de-
cided- II is for the interest az the state
that such complication should be avoid
ed II has been shown that the majority
OF interest Of the upland owners is opposed
20 the contract The'state interest is not
to be suhserved. and cannot see wherein
the public interest. or the interest of King
county, is 10 be benefited BY refusing 10
indorse this contract a way Will be left
open for the government canal by way OF
Smith cove. and that Is an undertaking
We ell expect 10 sec completed"
What Are Adjacent Tide Lands
Hon j. a. Stratton, representing Louis
Feurer, owner OF the wharf bounded by
Depot street on the south, said that If the
contract for the southerly portion Of the
tide lands referred 10 We're 10 be aban-
doned he had nothing TO say further than
az citizen. Hs discussed at some
length the statute covering the case,
which provides that the party making the
Improvement shall have a lien on "ad-
jacent lands" The axis OF the water
way was directed north and south, and no
proper construction OF the statute could
extend its provisions to lands not in some
way related TO that axis. To extend il
10 property as far south as Pike street
would be as unreasonable as TO extend il
TO West Seattle, for in either case such
a construction grew from an abuse of
terms. In the whole distance from Pike
street north the shore shelved abruptly,
and far from Being the character OF land
contemplated by the act il was In lust
al. So
day as il would be after such an improve
ment should be made. Mr.. Stratton devoted
some attention TO the question of bulk
head. which he said ought to be of a most
substantial character. he did not believe
that anything built of brush and sand
would stand the heavy seas along the
north shore line. and that if the improve
ment were made, finally the bulkhead
would collapse. tho filling be washed and
the owners of the land find themselves
blIrdened with expenses, without having
gained anything OF benefit.
George Kinnear. the owner of one-third
Of a mile frontage south OF Smith cove.
said the Improvement was not wanted,
and would not be needed for several
years He Endorsed all the protests pre-
v.ously made.
No Analogy With South Canal Work.
Maurice McAiieSen entered a protest on
behalf Of the owners Of the barrel factory
property SCUM OIL METNEI Street. ne
whole situation, he thought. should be
considered. From the south far as
King street the flats had for at least five
years been tied up by the improvement
now being made by the Seattle & Lake
Washington Waterway Company. and
from King street north 10 Pike the water
front was divided among small holders,
50 that the only available frontage for
factories was the property TO the north.
II that were tied up. the city for years
would be- without any available sites for
factories. From a business standpoint,
Mr.. McAIicken thought. the land would
not stand all the charges TO be made up
Oh 1t, including the cost Of nil, the profit
allowed by law. the interest and street
improvements He spoke of the nlling of
Railroad avenue, TO be made az the eS-
peuse Of abutting owners, and declared
that under the proposed contract the wa
ter front Of the north part OF the city
would he made practically worthless.
There was no analogy between the I'M
dertakiug oe the Seattle & Lake Wash
ingtou Waterway Company and that just
proposed aside from the question OF re-
claiming tide lands. for while the one had
been almost unanimously Endorsed by the
upland owners. the other was being al
most unanimously opposed
Mr.. sNfcNtcken's remarks closed the pro-
tests against the awarding of the con-
tract. and Gov. NcGraw asked II there
We're any upland owners IN the room VINO
desired u be heard IN favor OF the proDo-
sitton Horat.o y Pike attempted 70
sneak. saving n wished 10 correct Mr.
Preston IN reference 10 statements regard
ing the litigation that had resulted in the
Seattle. Lake Shore & Eastern acquir-
la< tile 70 the sandspit. He was a mine
owner hc said. and the statements made
hy the attorney were not correct.
IF you ara N upland owner. or claim
10 be tire representative Of an upland
owner. YOU may. speak" said the gov
e-uo~ otherwise l do not care TO hear
YOU"
AIr Pike thereupon took his seat. and
n1 upland owner being present 10 favor
the contract Mr.. Hays was allowed 70
close. lie said:
Hays Answers Objections.
The objections that have been urged
against this proposition are the identical
obie-tiaus heard and passed upon by the
commissioner at the hearing already had.
The principal objection Is that the own
ers themselves can make the improve
gre7ts more advautageouSly than II can
tc done for them under the present con-
tract Under the statute passed 20 cover
eases Ike this the upland owners had the
Same opportunity rs anyone els. 70 make
medication and 20 undertake the work
TEev have rot done SO. and I claim that
hy their iraltion trey have waived that
D. and are now estopped from making
objection at ta-s time.
NJ HAYS then took Up she question ~
tt'a IN the sauGspit. declaring that the
Lanai belonged - the state and that the
state had power n dispose rs Fl as lt chose.