The Price of Protesting a Road
Two men learned the hard way that testing the government's authority in court cannot be done by breaking the law first.
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.
Justice Lyon delivered an opinion yesterday in the case of the territory vs. H. H. and David Hughes, charged criminally by the territory of Washington with obstructing a public highway. The defendants were arrested and tried for a high fence across a road in District No. 4, of King County. The defendants brought up Section 1061 of the Code, which provides that if any person willfully obstruct or injure a public highway or road, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than five years, or by fine not exceeding $500. It was admitted on trial that David Hughes erected the fence, and that A. H. Hughes wrote, signed, and posted a notice requesting persons passing through to 'lay up the fence.' After going over the case thoroughly, the court concluded that said road was a legally established public highway established in 1873. The defendants argued they placed the obstruction there under instructions of legal counsel as a method to test the road's legal character. Justice Lyon ruled that he who assumes to violate law, even with the openly avowed design of testing the constitutionality of an act, does so at his peril. The court found them guilty, and each defendant was fined $40 plus costs, with a stay in the county jail until paid.
“He who assumes to violate law even with the openly avowed design of testing the constitutionality of an act... does so at his peril.”
This 1885 clash over access to public roads echoes modern conflicts in Seattle, where developers and private interests frequently navigate the friction between public rights-of-way and private property claims. The stern warning from the judge reminds us that even when seeking to challenge legal policy, the courts rarely reward those who resort to direct sabotage.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.