The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-04-01

To Cancel Contracts Made by the
Old Board for the Sale of Seat
tie Tide Lands.
Special to the Post-Intellgencer.

OLYMPIA. March 3l--The charges OF
Land Comm ssiouer Bridges against the
retired board Of state land conmis sio1ers.
In connection with contracts affecting Sc
attic tide lands, are to be made the sub
ject OF judicial Investigation. Gov. Rogers
having today directed the attorney general
10 commence suit in equity for the can
collation. OF the contracts.
Commissioner Bridges claims that he has
two contracts OF sale made by the retired
board 10 the Commercial Company, OF Sc
attic. upon which to base his allegations
OF fraud or at least, misnlanagement.
The first contract Is for land described
as al Of lots 8 and 4, block iss, of the
plat Of Seattle tide lands" The price stip-
ulated IS g. 7Ss. and the instrument is dated
September 30. 1896. This contract was as
signed November T. 1896. by the CONNER
cial Company 10 the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company for a consideration OF
si917.o4 the assignment being approved
by the board November g. 1896. The sec
ond contract Is for lots / and 2, OF the
same block. Consideration and date are
the same as in the first contract. as are
also the consideration and date Of assign
ment to the railroad company.
The property involved lies on Western
avenue between Marion and Madison
streets. and is In the heart OF the water
front. wholesale district OF Seattle Bridges
the IuIlI4mcuI OF LNeSS Two
contracts caused a loss TO the state OF
S144. 25s.0S.
Bridges further alleges that the records
fail 10 show that the old board authorized
the making Of these contracts previous to
the date on which they were entered into
he says II Is hard TO ascertain who has
profited by the deal, but the fact remains
that the state Is q heavy loser.
board OF state land commissioners when
the above dispatch was shown 10 him.
said: Another mares nest fun OF added
eggs. 50 far rs the board OF state land
commissioners Is concerned. TIE beard
had absolutely nothing TO do with the ap-
rratssl Of the lots In question. nor with
the issuance of contracts. Every attorney,
be re Populst or what not Knows that Is
the law ami the fact. The appraisal OF
the land was made by the King county
board OF tide lard APPRAISERS. The con-
tracts were Issued by the corumiSsion Of
Iubllc lands The supreme court Of Wash
irsgton in ex rel, Morse VS.. Forrest. held
that the state board OF land commissioners
could in no way interfere with. alter. or
amend the work OF the county board OF
tide land appraisers The board of state
land commissioners simply sat a. 81 tri-
bunal 10 PASS on the cues lions which Of
two or moro applicants to purchase tide
lands was legally entitled 10 a preference
right. II any person was aggrieved by the
findings OF the beard be had his right 10
appeal 70 the superior court. and let ne
say thai 80 far the findings 90 the state
board have with one exception. and that
one covered By an engineering error. been
sustained. and the superior courts are now
Popul.st.
In saving this do not intend 20 try 10
shift responsibility 10 the county boards
or the commissioner OF public lands Both
Of them had specified legal duties and
believe did them fairly, honorably and
well The appraisal by the county boards
was open 20 objection az the time by any
citizen OF Seattle. Furthermore. while I
DO not speak with authority on this point.
Il IS rot clear 70 me that because the Com
ueCe!al Company sold its franchise right
10 the Northern Pacific railroad against
which last corporation. as an applicant 10
purchase the tide land. the state board de-
clded) that * follows that the state was
robbed What the state sold was the fee
70 :he bare TIDE land: what the railroad
bought was not only the tide land but the
Improvements or 8 and every one knows
that they arc valuable There we're prob
ably other conscientious. too because the
Commercial Company, as the owner of
lands which the railroad needed. was in
p position % make the railroad come 10
iss terms.
As - the assignment % The contract.
thn law % March e 1885. provides thai IL
could be done. and the board and the
c3ran missioner Of public lands were LEGALLY
authorized 20 extend the time OF payment.
The state has nos loSC HAAS Is by These
sales II IL has lost anything at all. Il is
ere difference between Whst the lots we're
anNrA Issa az ~ tire King county board
and what they were actually worth as
hare tide lands. rot with the improve
ments oo them. Al that time did nor
hear chat any enc here protested against
the appraisal MI Bridges Was then here
ard otaer ro.ed Popuiistic leaders were
here; they lad the3r day ia court 70 pro-
test theu against the appraisal and they
jid not &c nv knowledge avail themselves
70 ~ II taere was SUCH gross discrepancy
in valuation. ss hetw cen s. so and $50 20
/ - = uct strange thai & vas not brought
nescre tha p4a.lc ghen rhs county board
was AZ VorN' TIE discovery IS a mares
aess