The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1906-08-04
by the prosecuting attorney. 1t is also a
jurisdictiona1 paper.

by the prosecuting attorney. 1t is also a
jurisdictional paper.
IRRE0ULARITY No. 3
The same section of statute requires
that the time appointed for the hearing of
the application in the notice ''shall lie not
moro than week from the expiration of
the publication thereof" The notice was
required by statute to be published at
least once week for the term of three
weeks. The first publication was on June
8, 1905, and the publication would thus be
complete on the 18th day of June, 1905,
but the hearing was set for July 5, or over
eighteen days after the expiration of the
publication. This, in the face of the stat
ute requiring that the hearing should be-
fixed not more than a week after the ex-
pira ton Of the publication. The prose-
cutting attorney is responsible for this ir-
regularity.
IRREGULARITY No.
The board of county commissioners is
supposed to be guided by the advice of
the prosecuting attorney. As stated be-
tore, the hearing was fixed in the notice
for july 5, 1906, at 2 p. M, but the records
of the board show that the matter was not
heard until more than thirty days after
the time appointed. The public records
show that the board of county commits
sioners on the 9Th day of July, 1905, put
over the hearing of this matter until the
9th day of August. contrary to the plain
mandate of the statute, Section 4l44, which
provides that the board cannot adjourn
such hearing for more than thirty days
after the day and hour designated in the
public notice for the hearing.
IRREGULAR1TY No. 5
The statute requires that notice shall
also be given by posting up at least three
notices in the neighborhood where pro-
posed wharf is to be erected. iSection 8949.
subsection 2, Pierce's code.) The record
in this case fails to disclose any compli-
ance with this statute but even if the no
tees as originally published, had been
posted, since they did not contain the in
formation required by law. they would
have been invalid. 1t is understood, as
before stated, that the notices in this mat
ter were prepared by the prosecuting at
torney, and the duty would devolve upon
him to see that proper notices were prop
erly posted.
IRREGULARITY- No. q
The statutes of this state require that
applications ofthis character may be
granted by the board only where the pub
liz ipfnrast Or convenience will he con-
served. A showing to such effect is nee
essary. (Section 8949, $3.50, 4l4l, 4145.)
There was absolutely no showing made
as to the public interest, but it was clearly
emphasized that MIR. Jensen's personal in
terests alone were to be safe guarded. The
verdict of the board at the hearing settles
this question. It recites 'that the board
is satisfied from the petition of said appli-
cant that thepublic convenience requires
such wharf" Contents of the petition or
application have been previously stated,
so it will be easy for the public to under
stand that no other showing was made.
The prosecuting attorney was present at
the hearing. He listened to the protests
of the appellants and others, and advised
the board in reaching decision.
IRREaUaARIrY No. Z
Section 4l45, Pierce's code, requires that
where the board accepts the application,
that they should set forth in writing their
reasons for accepting the same, and that
said reasons should be published in the
next subsequent weekly issue of the