The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1904-08-16
WASHINGTON VIEW or IT.
How the Question Of Jurisdiction ls
Regarded at Seattle.


ually sane paper. expresses this
somewhat erratic view Of the matter
affecting the rights OF the states Of
oregon and Washington on the Colum-
bia river;
Telegraphlc dispatches from Astoria
bring the information that Washing
ton fisherman has been arrested for
seinlng the Columbia river and has
been taken to Astoria for trial on the
charge that he was without a fishing
license Issued by the state Of oregon.
The position which oregon has as
sumed for many years on this subject
Is one Of radical absurdity. Perhaps
II is well that test case should be
made In the United States courts and
the matter settled authoritatively
When the territory OF Washington
was created by congress In March. 1853,
the southern boundary Of the territory
was fixed as the middle of the main
channel Of the Columbia river" Con-
gress also provided. however that the
territories OF Oregon and Washington
should have concurrent Jurisdiction
over all offenses committed on the
Columbia river, where that river forms
a common boundary"
This latter provision has been con-
strued by the oregon fish wardens as
extending the municipal Jurisdiction OF
oregon over the entire Columbia river.
and as giving Oregon the right to en-
force It's local regulations up to the
Washington shore.
The absurdity Of this Is manifest.
The concurrent Jurisdiction given was
not a general Jurisdiction. but spe-
! cific Jurisdiction for the purpose OF
dealing with crimes, when. from the
circumstances of the case. 1t might be
difficult or impossible to determine
whether an offense had been committed
within the territory of Oregon or that
Of Washington. 1t was given to offset
the possibility of crime going unpun-
ished through any such question.
The sovereignty of Oregon and the
jurisdiction Of the state, so far as its
own statute laws are concerned, stops
with the center of the main channel OF
the Columbia river. No citizen of
washington. on waters within the bor-
ders of his own state. doing an act
which is lawful within this state, is
properly subject to arrest because the
same act is forbidden by the laws OF
oregon.
Yet this is the contention which the
authorities Of oregon make, and not
for the first time. In the particular
instance referred to. the arrested man.
citizen OF Washington, had license
from the state of washington. He was
fishing In waters wholly within the
boundaries OF this state. Yet he is ar
rested because he had not procured a
license from the state OF Oregon, au-
thorizing him to fish in washington
waters.
Muddle-headed Dogberryism could
hardly go further than the assertion
of such right by the Oregon author
tiles. But they do assert 1t and have
kidnapped a Washington citizen from
this state, to answer the charge of hav-
ing violated Oregon law in Washing
ton waters. The matter certainly
ought to be taken into the United
States courts and settled, before the
aggressions of some stupid Oregon fish
warden bring on an armed conflict,
such as was nearly had at Sand island
some years since. The authorities of
the state of Washington should see
to 1t that the case of this Washing
ton citizen is properly presented to
the United States courts.