The Seattle Lawyer Who Argued Both Sides of the Tide-Land Question

A Seattle dispatch to the Spokane Review says: A curious and certainly embarrassing result of the recent decision is the position in which it places Colonel J. C. Haines. That military chieftain is attorney not only in the case in which he urged before the court that the United States could grant title to the Dr. Maynard tract, but also in the Baer vs. Moran case, in which he argued that the United States can not grant title to tide lands. The Baer vs. Moran case has appealed to the United States supreme court, and an appeal has been taken in the other case to the state supreme court. So one may confidently predict that while Colonel Haines will be making the fur fly from the cuticle of the other fellow in the Baer vs. Moran case, his time will be divided in an endeavor to keep the fur on his own skin safe.

There is an extraordinary lack of information among attorneys as to the real merits of the validity of the Valentine scrip filings. Every decision thus far has been against the scrip filings, but those who have carefully examined the law uniformly are of opinion that the United States supreme court will hold that filings on the tide lands are valid. Until the question is finally settled the title to about 360 acres of tide lands adjoining this city will remain so unsettled that, notwithstanding their value for business and manufacturing purposes, improvements will be discouraged, and in all probability completely blocked.