The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-31

cost or the fill property 20 the value OF the
to Mr.. Frinks estfmate) and the addition
near his property?
tide lands when filled. that portion lying
between the east and west waterways
would be worth $4,000 per acre.
tide Ihe d pesii,o N M Mr. n IL Young holds
state maximum ns p aiesfi[ II s RaSn and 'ns
minimum of SIS. AS this will be worth.
according acc to Mr.. Fink's estimate, $1,000
MT; Young was being defrauded?
me seattle Improvement Company. In
eoEporated by Hon: Thomas Burke and
otners, owns tide lands lying east OF
tne east waterway, paying the state there
LOT maximum price of 5000 per acre and
minimum price of s275ss per acre. This.
unoer Mr. Frink's estimate, will be worth
s%2oy per acre when filed.
~ IN tne observation-disclosures of Sunday, May
~ En, on page ls Judge Burke is quoted
as saying, among other things:
The injustice of such an arrangement
as this to the business interests OF Sc
I attie Il perfectly manifest. 1t may truth
Tense to the waterway company, that the
result IS holding up of the business in
lerests OF Seattle for the benefit of the
contracting company. The original motive
Tor granting the contract on the part of
,he state, namely, the excavation of wa
terWays and canal to Lake Washington.
Is now entirely disregarded and ignored"
Non-Extension Would Injure Seattle.
Judge, as commissioner of public lands
would not be aiding the protestants in
destroying the intent of the legislature,
and work an injustice to the business in
tertsts OF the city of Seattle and ignore
the commercial interests and advantages
to be derived from the construction of this
great waterway. II / refused TO extend
the contracts of the waterway company?
you further state In the nterviey men
TONED above: In the meantime the state
has disposed of the principal part of its
interest In the South Seattle tids lands.
ana ahe mas mas, received rs money therefor; yet
the parties In interest, or any of them,
attempt to impose burdens of the most
serious character upon property the title
with"
Judge. do you mean TO say. as a citizen
ana upon your reputation as an attorney.
that the construction of the waterway is
not OF great commercial interest TO the
people OF the state of Washington? Am
| 70 infer from your printed statements that
the state did not reserve its interest when
| u imposed the provisions OF the waterway
lien upon each contract or deed? Was not
THIS, IN addition to the money paid for
the tide lands. further condition mpos-
ed. the consideration being the filing in
| or said tide lands with the material ex-
cavated from said waterway? The state
| certainly had right to impose such ie-
gal conditions, and 1t is the duty of state
| officers intrusted with the care OF such
matters to see that the interests Of the
S.o'c NV tcHipitttiy lou men-
| ton In this interview that the state au-
| thorities, without notice to the parties in
interest. attempt to impose burdens upon
property; title to which 1t has parted
| mean to state that the commissioner of
| public lands IL required by law to serve
| ever character In the tide lands affected
| by the waterway lien clause? Do you
Know OF any provision Of law requiring
| such notices to be served? II notice was
served one more of the rffaa hnI
| ing the tide lands covered by the water
way lien clause. would not all parties be
| entitled to a similar notice? You say
| that the state has long since parted title.
| Do you not think you were somewhat
| mistaken In that assertion? Is 1t not
| conditional title that the state has part
| ed with?
Cost of RecIsiming Lands.
In, this interview to which refer you
further state:
"A single case will illustrate the gross
Injustice of extending these contracts. The
washington Iron Works. owned by Mr.. J.
| NJ. Frink. were established on the tide
| land flats In South Seattle, and within
| the limits OF these contracts something
more than ten years ago. Mr.. F'rink, the
| principal owner of these iron works. pro-
| ceeded from time to time to fill in the
| tide HATS in and around his works. The
! filling. OF course. cost him good deal
| of money"
Now. Judge is 1t not a fact that the
| filling done around the Washington Iron
Works Is made UP principally of debris
ashes. cinders and other refuse from the
fires?
| You say: "If the tide lands in South
Seattle are to be utilized for manufacture
ing ana other business purposes. the cost
| OF retaining them must be kept within
reasonable limits. IL the cost Is to be run
| up as high as provided I'm these contracts
| the lands when flied. IL ever filled at ALL
under these contracts will be so expen-
! sive that manufacturers cannot afford to
| buy them. Indeed the lands already
1 nat Ia H.. 49,
| the manufacturers cannot afford to use
| them, and are, In consequence compelled
to seek less desirable locations elsewhere,
| sometimes even going to other towns"
| In speaking OF the cost of retaining
| tide lands in your published interview,
| Is 1t not fact that the contracts with
| the waterway company were of record
| before the company of which you are
| one OF the incorporators secured its tide
| lands and were yod not fully aware OF
| the cost of retaining said tide lands un-
| der the terms of said contracts You
| seem to be of the opinion that the tide
lands already filled cost so much that
manufacturers cannot afford TO use them.
| Judge, IL you VIII kindly take a walk
down to the tide lands that have been
| reclaimed. | am inclined to believe that
you VIII INA greater number of manu-
| featuring Institutions located thereon aud
| operating. employing more men and man
ufacturing more material on the seventy
| acres filled In by said waterway company
| than you viii lind in all the rest of the
| manufacturing district of the city OF
seattla combined. Judge, do you suppose
| that your company Is being defrauded
that an injustice Is being done IT, secur.
| ing tide lands from the state, as It did
at cost OF a few hundred dollars per
| acre. the state having entered into a con.
| tract to improve said land at an approx
| mate cost OF $1,000 per acre when, as q
! matter OF fact, you know and | know
| that the tide lands owned by your com.
| pany, when filled. could not be secured
| from our company for sum less thar
| $4,000 per acre. You are aware. Judge
/ mi TIM n.
| attorney for certain corporations. hav,
| paid to certain individuals for assign,
ments OF their contracts and IN. priv.
iegcs OF having (as you term IN such In.
justice done, nearly 2,09 per cent profit
10 the holders OF said contracts for such
| assignments
| Calls for Proof of Dishonesty.
on MAY H. thore appeared IN the Seat
| tie Times. an editorial under the caption
| That Waterway Contract Extended.
| stating. among other things.
1T had been the pride and boast OF this
| business men OF Seattle that this ole
| ha rltnf gpnFgFu would never get "A ax