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


of the commissioner that. after the ex,
tension Of time was granted work should
be commenced within ninety days On
| the other hand IL is claimed the defend
ants operated small and inadequate
dredge for only a part of one day, ana
have since done nothing.
Having detailed these facts, the Legal
contentious made by counsel for Mr.. Hill
In support of mis- request for a restrain
ing order and clear title, are next enumer-
ated
First. 1t is charged that the original
act of 1893, giving the right to the state
to enter into such contracts FOR worh IN
dredging and filing the tide lands, Is IN
constitutional. 1t Is said to be voio pc
cause 1t fmpairs the obligation or contract,
and is a method of depriving an owner
OF his property without due process %
on tide lands acquired by the preference
right of purchase granted in 1871.
Declares Act Unconstitutional.
One Of the most important contentionss
then follows: 1t Is stated tnat ,ne -
of 1898. granting the r,snt IL in that
II makes provision for speciai asssss
ments against the property penen,eu, a,t
is therefore levying a spefS,sa ch cannot be
done by the state 1t is claimed tnat sucn
An assessment can be made only py W. s,,
Ing cities and similar organ' ana That the
legislature has no authority to vest sne
commissioner of public lands or any other
state otic ce,v wl'f For such an assessment
Another Important contention relates 70
the nature OF the contracts whicn were
prepared pe.w washington waterway Com
pany. These contracts. II appears, Were
made in such manner that the commas
sioner OF public lands reserved authority
10 modify the methods by which the work
should be done, or to allow any deviations
from the original specifications tnat me, ne
might deem proper. and necessary; Inc
niaintiffs believe this provision to be I'M
wise. as well as unconstitutional. Tor the
reason that a commissioner thus reserV-
ing the power to alter specifications at
his pleasure. might substitute masonry
wall for an ordinary bulkhcad, or vary
fll ten feet. at his personal desire. IL
Is commended that such authority could
not be granted legally. as the act provided
that ali contracts shall specify the char
acter OF bulkheads and restraining works;
and should latitude be allowed II would
be directly in violation of the letter of
A purely technical point. which may
prove of some Importance. Is contained
In the allegation that two OF the con-
tracts under which the waterway COM
pany formerly operated and stu claims TO
commissioner of public lands. In his in
dividual capacity. and not as such COM
missioner. ,,,
II IL stated that before Mr.. Hill pur-
chased the property now held by him. the
defendant had apparently abandoned Its
contract. and he believed at the time or
DtlrCnaSf. IL
the work and would never prosecute It
far enough to secure any liens on his
title.
orders purporting to extend the time for
completing the contract until 1904 were
irreguariy made and were without au-
thority of law Four reasons are assigned.
First that as two OF the contracts were
executed by Forrest in his private ca
pacity, they are not binding on the state
and are of no force. therefore not exist
| ing cannot be extended. second. that no
sufficient notice of any hearing for such
an extension was ever given 70 the parties
owning lands which would he anected.
| and that the extensions were therefore
made without consideration and Illegally:
| third because such an extension could
| not be legally made until II had been
| shown that diligence had been exercised
| by the contractors In attempting to COM
| plete their work. and that no such dit-
| Eence ever was exercised and therefore
| could not be shown; fourth, because such
extensions We're made without the consent
| OF the suretles. on bonds which have been
| given by the contracting company to the
| state. and therefore the bonds would be
made Of no force. II Is also alleged that
| under and by reason of these facts the
| commissioner OF public lands had In fact
| no power or authority 10 grant any ex-
| tension and his act was therefore void.
| Required for Terminals.
! The complaint sets forth that the Great
| Northern Railway Company requires all
1 its tide land for use as railroad depot and
a
! connection with It's railway system bust
| ness. II Is alleged that large and
| steadily Increasing passenger and freight
! traffic is carried on by the line, and the
interests % the traric. both 10 tho public
| and the Great Northern Railroad Com
4 pauy. require that a large portion Of the
| tide lands be immediately utilized and de
| velopad. and the lands IN controversy are
| the only lands suitable Tor the purpose
and are Indispensable g the efficient ard
| economical handling OF business by the
1 railroad company,
II IL stated that the railroad corupany
| intends 20 at once nu In ana utilize thesa
| lands, and with the means at its command
/ IN the way 81 steam shovcls. engines. e. rs
| and men. can readily DO the work at far
less expense than would be necessary II
Il IL were compelled 10 pay the contract
rate 70 the waterway compsny.
1 Furthermore n Is alleged. n the water
! way company is not prevented by this
| action from proceeding under les cons
| tracts. It cannot be forced 10 DO the work
| unti Il desires, which may not BE- until
| the four years extension is almost gone.
/ This It Is alleged. would seriously ham
| per ans DELAY the work now eontera-
| Company Il Is said that X authority cx-
| lists % grant one extension. further al
lowaaces uight be made and there Is no
! way 0f Knowing that The work would he
! ncNt decade ~ This DELAY shouis occur.
! u Is said that the value of the tdc lands
would be Impaired and they would be
/ made worthless for present use witch
| would damage the plaintiffs Ia she surn -
Ssaaa OF more II is moreover alleged
that the lands originally contracted FOR
cannot be llicG with TIE material which
| can he procured by tho defendant anf
that when Tie contract was prepared The
! defendant did not possess other property
from which 4, could bring earth for that
7 purpose.
me allegation follows that the defend
ant threatens Ga proceed with tho afIiYs.
OF the Sands owned rs plaintiffs g~a4 n
sGeh a pfoeeading IS permitted a lien Will