The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-23

State Several Years ago.
James j. Fiji and the Great Northern
Railroad Company yesterday commenced
an action against the Seattle and Lake
washington waterway Company wnicn
affects the title OF many acres OF tue
fiat property, and Is OF great interest 70
all persons owning unimproved land IN
that portion of the city. The action Is
brought to obtain perpetual restraining
order, directed against the waterway COM
pany and instructing 1t to refrain from
attempting to I'll. bulkhead or dredge any
portion OF the lands covered by It's original
contracts with the state of Washington.
The plaintiffs allege that should this
work be allowed the railway company
will be damaged to the extent OF more
than $4,000 The action is brought in.
the circuit court OF the United States for
the district OF washington. In equity.
The bill of complaint, prepared ny
Burke Sheps ID and McGilvrs. OF this
city. IL a yoluminous documen. and car
ries much detail concerning the matters
at stake II opens with formal state
ments to the effect that Mr. hi Is
citizen of Minnesota and that the Great
Northern Railway Company is Mime
sofa corporation. and the Seattle and
Lake Washington Waterway Company Is
a Washington corporation. IT Is then re-
cited that Mr.. Hill holds the title to the
lands. but that they are In fact the pro-
perty OF the Great Northern Railway
Company. description of the lands
then follow, which shows that Ave blocks
OF tide fats property are involved In the
action Mr.. Hill has acquired this prop
erty by purchase, great portion OF u
having been secured from private individ-
uals under different contracts OF pur-
chase. although about seven acres was
purchased at auction directly from the
state OF washington.
The next allegation OF the complaint
sets forth at length the provisions Of
statute passed during 1890, by which what
IS known as the preference right OF pur-
chase for tide lands was granted. Under
this law, the owners of upands In front
OF tide lands owned by the state are vr-
tuaily granted sixty-days' option on
such tide lands, beginning with the date
Of nna1 appraisement by the state. At the
expiration OF that time bids may be re-
ceived from other persons, II the own
ers OF adjacent property have failed to
complete purchase. Mr. Hill holds
twenty-seven acres OF property which
obtained them under these preference
rights, and now he succeeds to such
rights.
The complaint next takes up an act
passed by the legislature in 1893 providing
Tor the excavation of waterways by pri-
vate contract. This act provides that
contract for the construction OF water
ways through such tide flats could be
made between the state and private par
tiles, and that the compensation or such
parties should be received through the
granting OF lien on the property inn
proved or benefited by the construction OF
the canals. II Is alleged that under the
provisions OF this law Eugene Sempe en-
tered into q contract with the state OF
Washington. dated October ~. 1891. to fill
and dredge certain Seattle tide lands. It
IL stated that the lands owned by Mr..
Hin would be filled and that none OF
them lie within the limits OF the pro-
posed waterways which sempie intended
to prepare.
nistory Of Original Contracts.
A history OF the arrangements between
Semple who later assigned his contracts
to the waterway company, and the state,
Is given. by this " appears that bonds
aggregating $4,000 were entered into BY
the waterway company and the state.
and that some work was done between
October, 1894, and June, 1891, consist
ing OF the excavation q about q @o iineai
feet OF waterway and the filling and
partial bulkheading OF less than per cent
OF the entire area covered by the con-
tracts. II IL stated that about June 3D.
1887. the defendant company ceased TO
perform any work on Its contracts, and
since that time has done little or nothing
toward the accomplishment OF the task
1t IL stated that the contract under
which the defendant had originally oper-
atea was to expire after six years, and
as this limit approached the defendant
began TO perceive that an extension must
be procured, Consequently a petition was
filed In the office OF Robert Bridges. COM
missioner Of public lands, asking an ex-
tension OF time over that allowed for the
original contract, and stating that II had
used reasonable diligence In its efforts
To complete the work within the time or
iginaliy specified
The complaint states that in fact, due
diligence had not been shown. and that
no proof OF any effort to complete tho
work within the prescribed time was adj
duced at the time the extension was ask
cd Notwithstanding these facts the
commissioner granted an extension OF
time for four years, but directed that
unless work should be resumed within
ninety days the contracts would DO de-
clared void
IL u stated that after the waterway
company ceased work In tSaT. and before
this extension 81 time, many private por-
sons and corporations had purchased tide
fats property which is covered by this
contract. and plans have been prepared
by such owners. particularly by the Great
Northern Railway Company. 10 utilize
such lands, also thar should the plans
OF the defendant 70 M the lands be car