The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-06-02
A Searching Reply.

The letter OF Judge Burke to Robert
Bridges 1--WE omit the HON., Is
scathing exposition Of the misconduct
of the land commissioner. 1t would
have been more discreet in Mr.. Bridges
to remain silent than to invite this re-
ply. and these inquiries to which an an
swer becomes now imperative. For
Judge Burke convicts him on one point
of outright violation of the laws plain
language and intent. and also fastens
upon him a plain falsehood, the evil
dence of which is furnished by his own
office. Bridges was contemplate be-
fore, In the light OF his indefensible ac-
ton; now he Is poor scrap Of human
ity without a rag to cover his moral
nakedness.
His reply to his inquisitors was de-
voted mainly to a declaration that he
had acted within the letter OF the law.
In two particulars 1t falls short The
law provides specifically for public no.
It prescribes the mode OF notice. which
is by publication in newspaper OF
general circulation in the county where
the lands affected are situated. Wheth-
err that direction is or is not compui-
sorry az applied to the extension OF
contract. a man OF honor, OF regard for
Ia. Co. LII
tation, would observe it scrupulously.
There was no need of haste. More than
five months remained before the con-
tract expired by limitation. Bridges
not only gave no notice but took pre-
cious good care that the public should
not be appraised of his intentions.
1t is here that he is caught in the
meshes Of downright falsehood He
stated. in his extraordinary confession.
that the petition was filed on the 4th
day OF May. and the extension was
granted on the nth. Judge Burke says
positively that he has in his office a
certified copy Of the petition, bearing
the date OF Bridges own office. May
18th. as the day OF filing His word
would be ample as against that Of
Bridges, but here Is documentary evil
dence In addition. The certihcation OF
the land commissioner office says that
the petition was filed and the extension
authorized on the same day Bridges
took good care Of his friends.
In a more important item he stands
convicted OF absolute disregard Of the
law to which he has appealed The
statute under which this contract was
made attached one important condition
10 it's extension. That condition was.
we believe. essential In law "a II Ger
talnly was IN fairness or honesty. n
the renewal 81 contract privileges. It
was that the company must have shown
due diligence In the meantime So runs
the law SO runs the opinion or the
attorney general The law officer " the
state All. indeed advise Bridges that
the power to perform this act rested in
him solely. but he Was careful To add
tho eena4t4t-n ~ rs exercise: ''tlr,c,7l
showing ~ due diligence without
this no extension Was warranted IN
morals. without Il we believe that none
viii he upheld hy the courts.
rhere VAS neither due diligence" nor
WJs there q show iug" The only evil
isuce heard or sought by the land COM
mi-s.aner was the petition fled by the
waterway comp0ny. II contains unan-
sVcrable proof ths, dne diligence had
rot been exercised The company cav
euantsd salcmnly iu its contract to do
certain things and II complete them
within six years II was o. dig a canal
from the bay 10 Lake washington am
10 VAS 20 nm from $40 60 . csl acres Of
tide lands constructions stipulated Wa
tevways through the Hrc3 traat on rs
own WORT Il never intended 70 make
the canal Ry It's own testimony Il
Oiled about seventy acres 81 the whole
( amount on one Of It's contracts II
| never dia stroke o. work on none
/ Of them ala II lift q shove! fun If earth
or spend a dollar in the last three years.
| Unless this is due diligence" Is not the
act of the commissioner ia extending
| these outrageous privileges illegal and
| void? Who Will say that under the
most charitable construction this record
is such an exhibition of diligence as en-
| titles the grant OF fayers, hurdensome