The Battle Over Snohoish County Timber Land
A definitive government ruling reshapes the future of land rights in Washington Territory.
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 case has recently transpired involving fundamental questions, rulings, and appeals, and a final decision by the Department of the Interior in Washington that makes it an important test case for prospective settlers and land claimants in Washington, Oregon, and the Northwest generally. About two years ago, Alexander Spithill filed an application for the purchase of a tract of land in Snohomish County under the 'Timber Act' of June 3, 1878. Another party, John D. Gowen, had previously filed his preemption declaratory statement for the same land. Moreover, Mr. Gowen resided on his claim and made valuable improvements. This resulted in a contest that was tried before the register and receiver of the land office in Olympia. The trial occupied seven days, and the decision favored the timber claimant, Spithill. An appeal was taken to the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington, who affirmed the decision. However, an appeal to the Secretary of the Interior reversed the two former decisions. This final ruling holds that 'land which is susceptible of cultivation after the timber is removed is not subject to entry under the Act of 1878,' which clearly applies only to mountainous districts that cannot be successfully cultivated.
“Land which is susceptible of cultivation after the timber is removed is not subject to entry under the Act of June 3, 1878.”
This 1883 legal fight highlights the tension between industrial extraction and residential homesteading, a conflict that remains embedded in Washington's land-use policies. Just as the government had to adjudicate who had a 'right' to the land then, the modern Pacific Northwest continues to debate the environmental and economic prioritization of our wild spaces.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.