Three Bickering Land Departments, Millions in Tide Lands, and a Demand for Answers

Olympia, Jan. 17.—Since the introduction of the Dorr resolution calling for the appointment of a joint committee to investigate the workings of the state land commission, more or less speculation has been indulged in by the members as to the motive of the resolution, especially since the publication of the governor's message in which the actions of the land commission are so unreservedly approved by the governor. The motive for the introduction of the resolution becomes apparent when the following quotation from the report of the board of state land commissioners to the governor is read. On one page of that report it says:

"The condition of affairs in relation to the tide lands of the state is chaotic and unsatisfactory in the extreme to the owners and would-be owners of tide lands, to this board and to the state, whose interests are suffering daily, and without further detail we recommend to the legislature the appointment of a joint special committee to examine into [it]."

Upon the condition of the tide lands and the relation of the county boards, those of the commissioner of public lands and of this board, with the view of securing some systematic legislation in place of the present laws — one of which has been declared by the supreme court to be "rambling," and its provisions are disjointed and somewhat incongruous, which makes it a difficult law to construe, while another is said to contain "a most embarrassing non sequitur."

Further than this, the state auditor in his report, referring to the county boards of tide land appraisers, says it is "a system under which it costs more to measure and appraise land than the land comes to," and he recommends that that set of local boards should be abolished, and the whole land business of the state should be centered in the commission of public lands or the board of state land commissioners. $30,000 could be saved biennially to the state, and the state would have the advantage of concentrated responsibility.

The commissioner of public lands in his report says "a careful examination of existing laws will develop the fact that the duties of the office are not well defined." Again he says: "The duties of the board of state land commissioners and of the commissioner of public lands are so intimately connected that it is difficult to determine the functions of each."

It is noticeable that the report of the board of state land commissioners recommending to the legislature an investigation of the land department of the state, of which there are three in number, of independent but conflicting authority, is signed by Erastus Brainerd, T. M. Reed, jr., and S. J. Chadwick, but is not signed by W. T. Forrest, commissioner of public lands, who is ex-officio chairman of the board. Mr. Chadwick has been a member of the board only a few weeks, and it is currently reported that the board's report was written by Commissioner Brainerd, whom the Post-Intelligencer correspondent asked to make a statement covering the reasons for the resolution. Mr. Brainerd consented only to give the following statement:

"Diffusion of authority lessens responsibility. With divided responsibility there is an opportunity for lax administration, and that may lead to conscious or unconscious corruption. I am in favor of a concentration of authority and of responsibility in state officials. The reports of the state auditor, of the commissioner of public lands and of the board of state land commissioners must make as clear as day to the members of the legislature that there exists an immediate and urgent necessity for a thorough legislative investigation of the management of the state's lands. Personally I am in favor of abolishing any two of the three present state land departments. I do not care which two. I am not dependent upon the state for ability or opportunity to support myself. If I were not in favor of a thorough, searching and complete legislative investigation of the state's land department I would not have indorsed and signed the report of the board of state land commissioners in which the demand for such an investigation is first made public. I have some reason to believe that there are persons interested in land legislation who are opposed to a thorough investigation, and there should be no star chamber proceedings. There should be no one-sided investigation adroitly manipulated and shrewdly calculated to protect certain persons or interests and to injure others. The investigation should be conducted, in my opinion, by a joint special committee consisting of members of all parties and large enough to cast no shadow of possibility of making a whitewashed or blackwashed report. It should be an investigation thorough in its organization and scope so that the people of the state may see what they need and should have—a thorough and comprehensive view of what has been done in the past, what is being done now and what should be done by way of legislation to foster and protect the state's vast interest of millions of dollars in value."