The Wharf War on Taylor Street
A legal tug-of-war breaks out as the Union Wharf Company tries to block the Hastings family from accessing the waterfront, setting a precedent for public street rights in early Seattle.
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.
An injunction suit has been begun by the Union Wharf Company against Mrs. Lucinda Hastings to restrain her from using the new Hastings wharf for landing goods, wares or merchandise thereon, and hauling the same through Taylor street. Messrs. Bradshaw & Stehe have been retained for plaintiffs, and Messrs. Jones & Calhoun for defendant. The basis of the complaint seems to be the charter granted by the Legislative Assembly of Washington Territory to the Union Wharf Company to erect a wharf at the end of Taylor street, and have exclusive wharf privileges there. The basis of the defense is probably on the ground that the Union Wharf Company has never used the full width of the street, and that the Hastings have maintained and kept in repair a strip of said street next to their property and have a right to use the same. The case will involve points of law probably never adjudicated in the territory heretofore, and its outcome will be watched with interest. There is not much doubt but that the Wharf Company could have had exclusive right to the full width of the street under its charter, had its wharf been constructed and maintained that width, but whether or not its failure through a long series of years to use the franchise over the whole width of the street would stop owners of adjacent property from utilizing the portions of the street unused by the Wharf Company is the all-important point.
“The case will involve points of law probably never adjudicated in the territory heretofore, and its outcome will be watched with interest.”
This 1886 dispute over private use of public street space and waterfront access echoes contemporary Seattle battles over the privatization of public land and the encroachment of private interests on the downtown waterfront. The question of whether a franchise-holding corporation loses its 'exclusive' rights through years of disuse remains a core tension in how the city manages its rapid, often contentious, development.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.