The Supreme Court Defies Its Own Constitution
A legal dispute over Walla Walla land reveals how Washington State wrestled with the transition from federal territory to sovereign statehood.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A queer condition of things existed in the case of Romane vs. State of Washington et al., decided by the supreme court yesterday. The court appears to be endeavoring to pull down a provision of its own constitution. The respondent brought her action under an act entitled 'An act for the relief of bona fide purchasers of school and university lands' to compel a conveyance of certain lands in Walla Walla county, alleging that they had been sold and conveyed to her grantor by the county commissioners in 1885. Appellants urged that it would be a violation of the Federal constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, were the court to uphold the proviso to article 18, section 2, of the state constitution, and the act of 1889. The opinion states that the enabling act is at most a proposition and has no binding force upon the people of a territory until they have adopted a constitution and the state admitted. Treating the enabling act as a proposition for a contract, it would be an unusual thing if the people could present no proposals for modification. Congress proposed to grant to the state certain lands for certain purposes, and the people of the state, aware that certain persons had a strong moral equity in portions of these lands, proposed a modification which was passed without challenge by the president and congress.
“The enabling act is at most a proposition, and has no binding force upon the people of a territory until they have adopted a constitution and the state admitted.”
This case highlights the messy, often contradictory reality of early Washington statehood, where the new government had to navigate federal mandates while balancing the 'moral equities' of early settlers. Today, these same struggles appear in how Seattle balances state constitutional mandates (like the McCleary decision for school funding) against the practical demands of development and land use.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.