The Tunnel Under Seventh Street: Two Property Owners Take On the Railroad
Captain Hatch seeks $10,000 and J. A. Silsby $5,000, blaming the Northern Pacific's new tunnel for damage to their buildings — while the railroad insists the city, not the company, should pay.
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.
Proceedings in interesting suits were commenced before Judge Robinson, in the superior court this morning, the cases being those of Captain Z. J. Hatch, for $10,000, for damages incurred to his property in the change of grade on Seventh and Franklin streets, by the building of the tunnel through Seventh street for the Northern Pacific railroad, and by J. A. Silsby for $5,000, for alleged damage to his building, formerly the old Episcopal church, at the corner of Main and Seventh streets. The plaintiffs are represented by Allen Ayer, James M. Ashton being present for the railroad company. Should Captain Hatch be successful it is likely that several other suits will be commenced. In the action of J. A. Silsby the result will be awaited with curiosity.
When the Northern Pacific first sought a right of way through Seventh street, it was the intention to build a thoroughfare to the depot, leading from Main street, which would necessitate the acquisition by the railroad company of the lot about 60 feet in width on which the church building stands. The company offered Mr. Silsby $7,000 for the land and afterwards increased the offer, but Mr. Silsby, so attorney Ashton says, demanded $18,000. Then it was that General McKenny agreed to move his house one block south, on a lot which formerly belonged to the Unitarian Society. He realized the value of the railroad to such an extent that he made way for a street on his property and received no remuneration other than the expense of moving his own home.
In the argument on behalf of the railroad, Attorney Ashton contends that the railroad company holds the right to run beneath Seventh street by virtue of a city ordinance granting such a privilege. He holds that if the terms of the ordinance are of such a character that it is necessary to raise the grade of a street in order to carry out the provisions of the grant, it is the city which has re-established or damaged the grade, and not the railroad company, and therefore the city is the party with which the plaintiffs should litigate. Mr. Ashton also contended that Silsby's building was not damaged in any respect, as claimed in the complaint.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs made a forcible argument, and the termination of the case will be watched with the closest interest by everybody.
“It is the city which has re-established or damaged the grade, and not the railroad company, and therefore the city is the party with which the plaintiffs should litigate.”
When the Northern Pacific tunneled under Seventh Street, it set neighbors against one another over who should pay for the damage — the railroad that held the right-of-way or the city that granted it. That tangle of public grants and private property is still with us whenever a rail line, road, or development reshapes a neighborhood. In Olympia, fights over who bears the cost of growth remain a familiar local ritual.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.