The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-06-01

diligence. The property rights Of others
were involved Yet you proceed to pass
without giving the owner a chance 10
be heard; 10 hold an investigation
the waterway company had shown due
diligence, but taking care that there
should be no witnesses present except the
cornpany's officers
But even If this statute gave you such
an arbitrary power over other people
property that you could pass Judgment
a hearing, stil. under the law Of 1893.
you could not legally extend the contracts
In question without a showing of due Gill
ty. Now, the public say there was no
showing of due diligence. There Is no
record in your office showing due dill
the petition OF the Seattle e. Lake Wash
ington Waterway Company That petit
ton. on its face. shows both had faith
and want Of diligence.
FnInIIment of Contracts.
The Seattle 2, r.ata Washington Water
way Company openly states In that petit
ton to you. as the representative in that
respect of the state OF Washington. that
they never expected to fulfill their con-
tracts. Here Is their language: 1T was
not considered by the contractor at the
time Of signing the contracts that the
time allowed therein for the completion
OF the work was a reasonable one, etc
You knew OF your own personal Know
edge at the tine this app, application W mas
company bad not done stroke of work
under any one OF those contracts. Do
you call that diligence? Nay, more: IT Is
a matter OF common knowledge that moth
ing was ever done under one OF these con-
tracts: attempt for more than i've
years to do any work under II. Is this
the due showing OF diligence required by
the statute?
Discrepancy In Dates
You say in your letter that the petition
of the waterway company was filed on
the 4th day. of May. This is not correct.
1t was filed on the 9TH day of May the
day on which the order granting the ex-
tension was made. You ask how do l
know that My answer is, ! know IT from
fiei copy OF the petition of the Seattle
& Lake Washington Waterway Company
MADE ~ enss S eare on from r t your Office
That certified copy says that the petition
was filed on the 7th day OF May. So that.
e peton 70 Of the the seSs I Lake. Wash
ington Waterway Company was Med on
Monday and the order extending the time
or on S Msnday indeed hs as am Informed.
the petition didn't leave here until Satur-
day, the 5th day of May, and so couldn't
have been filed in your office on the attn.
Question of Due Diligence.
You are wrong when you say you acted
under the advice of the attorney general
The attorney general never advised you
for he ~ too good a lawyer for that-that
you had any authority TO extend these con
tracts except upon showing Of due dill
igence. What he did say to you was TINS;
There can be no question as to the dis
erection vested by this language The com
missioner OF public lands, upon n showing
OF due diligence. has the power to extend
the time for either the beginning or compile
ton of the work. He is the sole and only
Judge of due diligence, and the only au-
thority vested with this discretion That
Is what the attorney general advised YOU
But now can you make out case OF due
diligence In the face OF the notorious rec
ord OF this company under these contract5y
How can you ind a showing or Que dili-
gence when the applicant openly states TO
you in its petition that there never was
any intention OF competing these contracts
within the time named in the contracts?
Not an Arbitrary Discretion.
The discretion which the statute lodged
In your hands was not an arbitrary as
statute to make careful inquiry to ascer-
tain whether due diligence had been shown.
And what did you do? Simply took the
word of the applicant seeking the public
favor Upon your ewn showing you never
made an Inquiry outside OF the applicants
themselves. Do you call this an honest
investig alton to ascertain whether due
diligence had been shown or not? What
would you think OF a court that would
undertake 30 pass judgment on questi N
involving the rights OF many parties which
should refuse to hear any but one party
and enter Judgment In favor OF that party
upon his own showing? You would be the
monstrotis and yet II IL not particle
more monstrou- than that the commission
er OF public lands. under such statute
az thai of 1893. imposing upon him such
grave responsibility as that OF passing
upon contracts involving millions OF dcl-
lars. should when such contracts come up
for extension, make no inquiry. make no
Investigation, have no hearing. but pro-
nounoa Judgment upon the bare statement
~ the applicant who was seeking public
favug.
Provision = Farce.
You urge In defense OF your action that
Won required the company to resume work
within ninety days from the date OF tho
order Of extension. falling in which the
extension would be void DO YOU not real
tie that this boosted provision IS farce
What did YOU mean by commencing work?
Did you say In this provision what you
meant by IT. IL the corporation put "A
dredger at work for a week or day
would It not he commencing work under
your provision? And, " SO, what value
or protection is II TO the public
You ask this question: DO you mean
| 10 say as a citizen and upon your repu
tatiOn as an attorney. that the constTuc-
ton of the waterway is not of great com
mercial interest to the people Of the state
OF Washington | am surprised that YOU
| should ask such a question as that What
relevancy has Il TO the controversy here?
I will answer YOU, however. I think the
| building OF a waterway In South Seattle.
| within "a reasonable time. at reasonable
| expense, benefit to the public, hut
| do not think that II IL TO the interest Of
| tho public, ar TO the interest OF anyone
| but the contractor, that under the pre-
| tense 81 building a canal and waterway.
| the tideands Of South Seattle should be
| tncunhered for years Tor the benefit of a
| corporation that has signRly failed to
| perform its contracts with The state
| Terms Arc Unjust.
| The reference to the state contracts and
| the interests reserved ny the state IS
| equally beside the question. Just how far
| those testT, atoms 60 - a question Go he de-
! tevmtued tn future hy the courts.
| The public Is also righ, in Us third
] ground Of complaint Under present con-
| ditiuns the terms ~ these contracts are
| unjust and oppressive The price Is large
| Is iu excess % what o. should be Tor such
| work and NJ WhAt such work Is being
| done Tor elsewhere on Puget sound The
| rNlN - ImtrrNNt. nor rrMt rnr AnrMn-