The Judge Who Warned Seattle Not to Sell Its Waterfront to a Canal Company

SEATTLE, July 12, 1894. To the Editor: The farmers of King county, and especially those living in the valleys of the Duwamish, Black Cedar and White rivers, have suffered severely and frequently from the overflow of those streams, and their attention is therefore naturally directed to the most efficient means of preventing those devastations, or at least to afford some relief therefrom. And it is not alone the farmers that are affected, for the destruction of the agricultural resources of the community is felt by all. It is a well-known fact that the beds of these streams are shoaling every year by the deposit of silt washed down from the mountains, and that unless these deposits are removed by natural or artificial means the beds of the present channels will eventually fill up and new channels will be formed on lower ground. The only remedy is to improve the present waterways or to construct new ones. For many years past public attention has been directed to the project of creating a new waterway from Lake Washington to tide waters by the way of the portage between Union bay and Lake Union and the outlet of Lake Union to Salmon bay, and by private enterprise the outlet of Lake Union has been somewhat enlarged and a small canal cut through the portage. The further enlargement of this outlet and this canal would afford relief measurably in a ratio proportioned to the capacity of such waterway as so enlarged, provided such canal was kept open as a waterway and used as such to the extent of its full capacity; but to afford complete and permanent relief the Duwamish river must also be deepened and perhaps straightened. This great and very necessary work of improving our rivers and harbors is one which the general government should attend to, and no doubt will in time, if we are properly represented in congress. In the meantime, as before stated, temporary and partial relief might be obtained by the enlargement of the outlet to Lake Union and the canal between the two lakes, if the parties in interest would work in harmony. It is understood that the owners of the land through which the outlet of Lake Union runs will consent to the enlargement of that outlet, reserving, of course, all their property rights, but not so, however, with the owners of the canal between the two lakes. This canal is not used as a waterway, and its owners will not permit it to be so used without compensation, and large compensation at that. With the consent of the owners of the land on the outlet and the owners of the canal across the portage referred to, the farmers affected by the overflow of the rivers, with such outside contributions as they could obtain, might enlarge those waterways so as to obtain partial relief. Without such consent they are powerless to do anything. It is difficult to understand why the consent of this canal company should be withheld, as the improvement made would improve their property, except on the theory that they claim a lien upon the waters of Lake Washington for water power purposes, and to which allusion will hereafter be made in another connection. The proper construction of a canal and waterway between Lake Washington and tide waters, so as to lower the lake, and the improvement of the channels of the Duwamish and White rivers, will not only afford relief as to the overflows referred to and reclaim a large area of fine agricultural land, but will enlarge and improve our harbor, making it one of the finest in the world. To construct this canal as it should be constructed for commerce and navigation and as a waterway will cost some $3,500,000, and to properly improve the channels of the Duwamish and White rivers, say $300,000 more. While these are vast sums of money, not to be commanded by the city of Seattle, or county of King, or both, and which no private corporation would or could be expected to expend for the improvement of our harbors and rivers in the interest of commerce and navigation and to drain our agricultural lands, yet the work is a proper one for the general government to perform, and larger sums are annually appropriated by congress for improvements of rivers and harbors not as legitimate or as much needed as this. Oregon, with a smaller population and less need of it, annually receives much larger appropriations for similar purposes. This undertaking has been indorsed and urged by every government engineer who has investigated it; one branch of congress, the senate, has indorsed it, and, but for the jealousy of a neighboring state, an appropriation would have been made at the last session of congress for the construction of the canal and waterway in question. If we make suitable efforts and have a little patience this great work will be accomplished. But we become impatient at long and vexatious delays, especially in such hard times as these, and many, losing their mental balance, become reckless, and are ready to indorse or engage in any wild scheme that may be presented by political demagogues or financial speculators. Such a scheme is now presented by a recently formed corporation called the Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company. This company proposes to excavate waterways through and fill in the tide flats at the head of Elliott bay (over 2,000 acres), and construct a ship canal to connect one of these waterways with Lake Washington, by what they call the southern route, and in part through school section 16, township 23 north, range 4 east. This canal is to be about two miles long with a maximum cut of 340 feet, the minimum width 75 feet and the average 100 feet, 60 feet wide at the bottom, and the amount of earth to be removed will be about 2,000,000 cubic yards. The removal of this earth alone at 25 cents per cubic yard would amount to $7,000,000, to say nothing about bulkheads, tide gates, locks, etc. The canal feature of this scheme is not only not practicable on account of the enormous cost of the work, but it is evidently a bait to catch the ear and eye of the public and divert attention from the real purpose of this waterway company. The real purpose of this corporation is to excavate waterways through and fill in the tide flats, and for which they expect to receive an exorbitant price, and if by any chance the canal should be incidentally constructed it will be private property, and a toll would be levied upon all vessels and others passing through it to the full extent of what the traffic would bear. Besides, it is not proposed to make this a drainage canal or lower Lake Washington below the ordinary mean high water. It will be in the power of the company to prevent any water traffic except what is needed to feed it, the same as the owners of the canal between Union bay and Lake Union are now doing. Like the Portage Canal Company, this Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company is counting largely on the water power rights by Lake Washington. In the published report the engineer of the company, speaking of this canal, says: 'A fine and conveniently located water power will be created, which will be available for any purpose.' Again, in speaking about lowering the canal, he says: 'If the lake is lowered to provide for the better drainage of Squak valley or to receive the flood waters of Cedar river, the bottom of the canal will have to be lowered and the amount of excavation will be increased. The policy of thus lowering the lake and canal will naturally depend upon the amount of subsidy which can be obtained from the people directly benefited.' In other words, this company may consent to lower Lake Washington, if the farmers of King county will pay them their price for so doing. They will, no doubt, also demand compensation for the water power they lose by the operation. This corporation will no doubt claim, as the other canal company does, that by the act of the construction of their canal they have obtained a lien upon the waters of Lake Washington that will enable them to prevent the lowering of that lake, even by the government of the United States, except upon due compensation. The more waterways of this kind we have, the worse we are off so far as our agricultural interests in the river valleys referred to are concerned. To kill agriculture is to kill a goose that lays many a golden egg. But even this is not the worst feature of the scheme under consideration. It is the evident purpose of this corporation to abstract the money to excavate and construct these waterways and fill in the tide flats out of the people of this city and county, through the instrumentality of that vicious act of our state legislature, passed March 9, 1893, entitled 'An act prescribing the way in which waterways for uses of navigation may be excavated by private contract, providing for liens upon tide and shore lands belonging to the state, granting right-of-way across lands belonging to the state,' to be found in the session laws of 1893, page 241 to 246. The whole superstructure of the tide flats scheme is based upon this act, and the canal part of it is a mere incident. Under the provisions of this act the commissioner of public lands may in his discretion enter into a contract with any person or corporation for the excavation of any waterway or waterways through any lands belonging to the state of Washington, or to any citizen or corporation of said state, and for the filling in and raising above high tide of any tide or shore lands belonging to the state of Washington, and upon the completion of such contract such person or persons or incorporated company shall have a lien as in this act provided upon all tide and shore lands belonging to the state of Washington adjacent to such waterway and remaining unsold at the date of the approval of this act, that they may fill in and raise above high tide, and all purchasers of said tide and shore lands from the state of Washington shall take the same subject to said lien. This contract does not fix the price for these excavations and filling in, but the fourth section of this act does fix it at the actual cost with 15 per cent added, and said commissioner is required to issue his certificate therefor, and the amount specified in the certificate is to bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum until paid. Section 2 provides for the approval of the contract by the governor, but there is no provision in the whole act that the governor or any other officer or person, except the commissioner who issues the certificate, shall have anything to do with determining what the actual cost is or shall be agreed upon to be. This cost, consisting of the items of expense connected with excavating waterways, including the canal between the bay and lake, constructing bulkheads, and perhaps tide gates and locks, as well as the filling in of the tide flats, is all to be saddled upon the land filled in, and this, as fixed by the contractor and commissioner, together with 15 per cent added, and the 8 per cent interest, is to be paid by the purchaser from the state, in addition to the appraised value of the same land by the state. But the great fault of this law as to the point under consideration is the opportunity, amounting almost to a license, given to the commissioner to adjudge the cost of the work in question at fictitious or fancy figures. It is the value, not the cost of such work, that should be made the basis of the contract; and the value should be determined by a board to consist, say, of the governor, secretary of state and commissioner of public lands. But the most objectionable feature of this act is the privilege it gives to the contractor to construct tide gates or locks in any one or all of these waterways, even on the tide flats or at the mouth of the Duwamish river, and thus exclude commerce and navigation therefrom, except on the condition of paying such toll as the contractor might choose to levy. There are many other grave objections to this scheme and this law, such as appropriating school lands to private use without compensation, making large provision for commerce that does not exist, and cannot be created by this scheme, constructing wooden bulkheads and locks only to be eaten by worms and crumbled by natural decay, and forcing large tracts of made land upon the market not required for actual use; but if reason and common sense is to prevail and fraud and corruption is not to rule, then there is no necessity for further elaboration; if otherwise, such elaboration would be labor in vain. If we have any surplus funds or can command any, let us employ them in creating values such as improving and reclaiming rich agricultural lands, developing our mineral and other natural resources and creating manufacturing establishments. It is not only the tide lands adjacent to the harbor of Seattle that is involved, but all the tide lands within or in front of incorporated cities or towns or within one mile thereof on either side, bordering on all the tide waters of the state. These vast areas of tide lands, if preserved and protected until they are required for legitimate use, will afford the means of creating an immense fund for the benefit of the state and the cities of the state. Already this Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company has procured the adoption of its plan of waterways over the tide flats in the harbor of Seattle, canal and all, and the next step will be to apply for a contract under this act of March 9, 1893. It is to be hoped that no contract whatever will be entered into by the state until the legislature has had an opportunity to amend or repeal the act in question. In about six months our state legislature will meet and the entire house and half the senate will be new and fresh from the people. Why not allow the new legislature to have an opportunity to pass upon the merits and demerits of this act before any contractor under it shall be put in a position to claim any vested rights in the premises? It is thought by many that any structure erected upon the scheme of this act will fail of its own weight, and while this view is no doubt correct, still the safest and best way is to nip the thing in the bud. Since the foregoing was penned it is announced that the sum of $100,000 has been inserted in the congressional appropriation bill by the senate committee to begin the Lake Washington canal. JOHN J. McGILVRA.