(
"A
12
THE OREGON DAILY ' JOURNAL, PORTLAND, FRIDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 30, 1914.
SERIES OF QUERIES
ARE SUBMITTED ON
' t
IE
FORESHOF
PROBLEM
Then follows numerous. cHAtions, in
cludingr Johnson vs. Knjatt, an 1889
case, in which the court said of the act
of 1374: ""It is unreasonable to sup
pose the legislature intended to grant
away the banks of the river; they could
no more do that than they could grant
away the whole river.' '. ..
These decisions 7ere followed in all
Willamette cases down to the public
dock suit in 1913, when the, public it
self asked recognition of its rights in
the wharftarea, when the established
law was overruled..
, Meaning of Decision.
I Objectors have ptateJ I am incao-
t decision.
rton deci
sion requires one to understand that
the phrasing therein used means low
water when it says high, I must plead
guilty.
A more luminous explanation, how
ever, Js that of their pet philosopher,
Nietxsche, who says: "There is no rea
son that a falsehood should not be used
instead of a truth if it is more useful."
. The Oregon enabling act pledged Ore
gon to the policy of federal govern
ment and American common law to
maintain as free highways all of the
navigable waters of the state. How Is
1 . . . - - . 1
thd'r attorneys ' ncrrniwry nuir io icywm uicse
and retainers bavlnir now "nrnhM, laonsnea imngs 10 prevent migauon:
Objections Considered in
Reference to Proposed j flZ?
Wharf Legislation,
RIGHTS OF PUBLIC ISSUE
- Iffect Hsaswrs Would Have on Taxes,
Private property Claims, XteM Dis
; V cataed Decisions Cited.
i By J. B. ZieRltr.
Foreshore claimants.
stated all the objections which they
can devise to the pending wharf acts,
I want' to give them an opportunity to
summarize, by ak-fng the following
questions on all those of any" import
ance which they have made:
First objection: t'rmettle titles.
Jurtgs Wolverton, in Montgomery vs.
, Hhaver, 41 Or., 244. held that the boun
daries of the litigants' properties
stopped at ordinary high water line,
did not extend to low water line, as
Shaver claimed, but that from ordinary
high water line to deep water was
wharf right, and the lines ran at right
angles to. ihe thread of the stream, as
"the law holds wharf bound.-irles run.
Thls'was In 1!01, after the passage of
the alleged granting act of 1874, and its
repeal in 1 NTH.
Opinion Is Quoted.
'" Judge Volvrrton nid: "It has been
suggested that the nhore owner takes
' to Inw water, iiiKtead of ordinary high
water mark, but the rule to the con
trary mtsrheen so firmly established In
Jhl Jurlsdfctlon that It is unnecessary
to treat Che question further than t
cite the cases In which It is involved."
Increase of Taxes.
Second objection: Increase of taxes
by taking property off tax roll.
Third objection: Compel waterfront
owners to pay a lease rental.
These two objections must be taken
together, as they attempt to frighten
those who don't own waterfront by the
exemptions made on-Hhat waterfront;
, and those that do own waterfront, by
asserting the the public charges will
be greater,
How does the change in technical
form of the public revenue from tax to
lease affect anything. but the tenure Of
title?
Is it possible to Improve the shores
for public commerce satisfactorily ex
cept under public title?
Fourth objection: Takes what be
longs to all the state and confers it
upon a locality.
That remark so obviously applies to
placing a part of a public waterway in
the possession of private individuals,
that question is unnecessary.
Would Benefit Public
Public improvement of Portland har
bor will be a great benefit to all parts
ii. H
of the state. Will cheapen transporta
tion, increas its commerce, stop1 the
diversion of its trade routes to Seattle
and San Francisco, increase the .taxable
wealth . of the state, and encourage
intra-state development.
, Fifth objection: Takes away from
shore owners outside municipalities
their riparian rights.
There is nothing in either of the
bills interfering with such owners ex
cept within five miles of incorporated
towns. The constitutional amendment,
however,' reasserts the public right al
ready asserted in the federal constitu
tion that the public right on naviga
ble waters is inalienable and that leg
islation may he hereafter provided for
leasing the foreshore. Such legislation
when passed should give abutting
owner first right. Until such legisla
tion is provided, rural shore owners'
status remains as it is.
Sixth objections State can't take
back what once it gives away.
How can the state give away any of
the harbor area in face of its trust to
hold it as a commercial highway?
How can the-public be required to f iil
for- private claimants, and to isr i
bonds to buy sites for public docks ut
the same time?
The act of 1874 only gave such title
as the state could legally grant that
is in subjection to the public right
good against a third party for private
use, but not against the state for pub
lic use. The public right is always
paramount (U. S. supreme court, Jn
Chandler Dunbar case of this year;
Garrison vs. Greenleaf Johnson (Vir.).
Why Deny, Appeal?
The Oregon supreme- court said in
the Public Dock case the legislature
could have repealed the grant of 1874.
It did in 1878. Why did the court
not mention that repeal? Why do at
torneys deny the repeal? .Why are
sound acts protecting public rights ig
nored, and only unsound acts, denying
them, recognized by our astute oppo
nents?
Seventh objection: Drive away in
vestors. Is an efficient harbor, with ample
area and public improvements, less at
tractive to investors than a narrow and
insufficient one, mutilated by all man
ner of private claims, fills and obstruc
tions?' Does the judicious farmer permit the
'big pig to lie down in the trough and
waste the swill and keep the other, pigs
Poor' Mother Sick;
Two Tots Need Care
- ' Testerday a mother came to
the Associated Charities office-.
with two little "children, Bobbie
4 and; Johnnie, aged respectively
4 years and 20 months, clinging
to her skirts. She was deeper-
ately ill and after a physician;,
had been consulted hospital ar-
rangements were made y the
Visiting Nurse association; but
what was to become of the lit-
4t tie ones whose father has gone
away? Two women volunteered
4 to shelter them until other ar-
rangements could be made:
Today the Associated Chari
er ties is appealing to the warm-
hearted citizens for homes
where the tots can be cared for
until the mother recovers suf-
ficiently to gather them in her
arms once more.
Anyone who can help please
call Miss Anna Murphy at the
Associated Charities, Main 717,
A-1517.
mean low Vater line, and bankfull
stage to mean a stage overflowing b
yond the banks. .'?....-
Ninth .' -objection: Deprives school
fund of revenue. .
This assumes that the taxes on
wharf rights is greater; than half of
lease rentals would b trade? proposed
law, San Francisco's experience is to
the contrary.' And there is no evi
dence' that v present assessments of
waterfront property adds anything for
the wharf right, -'.-.
Tenth objection: Lease clause only
provides for wharves, piers, etc. Does
not provide for sawmills, canneries,
etc.
Under the law as It is U is only
for wharves, piers, etc, that the shore
owner can enter the area of navigable
waters, jnucn oi uie sawmill and can
nery use is a proper wharf use, but
the state should have the right to con
fine the mlH3 to the upland if the
waier. area is needed for a more public
use. r
. -
Tunnel Bid Accepted.
Sari- Francisco. Oct. 30. City Engi-
out? Is such a trough more inviting to
the herd?
Do investors prefer Portland now to
Puget sound and San Francisco?
Both Washington and California have
reasserted the public right in the fore
shore in their constitutions, and are
improving public wharf areas without
purchase. Why do they deny this?
Is not Oregon entitled to the same
benefit?
Why is knowledge of the laws pro
tecting the rights of the people of Ore
gon denied to them by these keepers of
the public conscience?
Eighth objection: Would set up pub
lic claim to overflow, because of the
definition "bankfull stage."
The reason the term "bankful stage
was' used was to limit the public claim
to use of channel within its hanks, and
to distinguish it from area occupied by
its waters when they overflow, or an
overflow stage.
Again I must appear to these objec
tors as one of the stupid laity, unable
to appreciate fine judicial processes by
which high water line is shown to
neer O'Shaughnessy . recommended to
the board of public works today that
it accept the bid of Robert C. Storrie
& Co. of San Francisco of' $3,372,000
for building the Twin Peaks tunnel.
Schwartz Is Dead. '
Centralia. Wash.. Oct. , 30. William
Schwartz. familiarly known as
"Shorty, night desk sergeant at the
Centralia- police station until he was
forced to go to California for his
health . last February, succumbed to
tuberculosis in a Los. Angeles hos
pital, according to a message re
ceived in Centralia yesterday. A sub
scription was recently circulated
among local business men and a sum
forwarded to California ' to help
Schwartz out.
Berlin Calls Report "Lie."
Berlin, by wireless via Sayville, Oct.
30. An official denial of the Lisbon
report that German troops had in
vaded the Portuguese African posses
sion of Angola was issued here today.
"This report,' it was stated, "isa
flat lie, forged in order to justify Por
tugal's participation In the war as an I "It is eertaln that'the revolt led by .
aid to the British In coping with , the Generals Beyers and Do Wet is assura
South African rebellions, ; - ' ing formidable proportions." '! -;.-f
"Choose your Westoveir
lot Smedlay
Get a plat of the property from our offices tomorrow, if you haven't one already.
Come up with your wife to. Wesjtover Sunday and make a selection "-you will never
again have the chance to chooseany view lot on Westover Terraces for . $3000.
The end of this sensational
Westover sale is in sight!
A halt is bound to be called before many more days, at the rate Westover lots have
been selling this week. There is a limit to the number of lots which will be sold at
$3000. And when that limit is reached the necessity which forced this sale will be
wiped out. , i
There will be n6 salesmen on the property Sunday, but Mr. E. A. Clark may be found
at the office on Westover road from 2 to 5 o'clock Sunday to give out maps and other
information. All the lots are plainly marked with white stakes so that they may be
easily located.
F. N. CLARK & CO.
Selling Agents -
Second Floor Title & Trust Building
89 FOURTH STREET
Main 5423 A-7617
To reach Westover by machine, go
uo.Lpvejoy street to Cornell road.
Then follow Cornell to Westover.
Good auto rpadvto the top of the
Terraces. By street car. take "Wn
car on Mormon street marked
Westover. ' Transfer at 25th and
Petty grove. Co to end of the fine
through Westover.
iin
"Coupe
Are Explained for Benefit of the Public
Teal
and
99
tent
' J?
99'
ge j
.Demtisf
i
Through the news columns of the Portland papers Dr. E. R. Parker (Painless Parker) ainouncsfd
that he had "posted a challenge to the Oregoji State Board of Dental Examiners," asking for public prdof
that he had failed to pass the State examination and offering the sum of $10,000 for the use of the unem
ployed of Portland if such proof were given before election day, November 3. of
THE SO-CALLED "QHALLENGE" WAS NEVER "POSTED" AND HAS NOT BEEN RECE1VBD
BY THE OREGON STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS.
Knowing THAT DR. PARKER'S ADVERTISEMENTS ABOUT tne DENTISTRY BILL WERE DE
LIBERATELY FALSE, and that his charges against the State Dental Board, the Oregon State Dental As
sociation and other organizations and individuals have been PURPOSELY UNTRUTHFUL, the.Oregpn
State Board of Dental Examiners replied that if he would make a' bona fide challenge and would bacfit
by a certified check for $10,000, sent to the Governor of the State, the challenge would be accepted. Jf
The MERE UNSUPPORTED WORD OF DR. PARKER WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS R
LIABLE. . . i , 8
DR. PARKER HAS AGAIN DODGED. He is unwilling to meet the conditions of a bona fide chal
lenge. Neither the Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners rior the Oregon .State Dental Association
desires to wrest from Dr. Parker the sum he pretended to offer for the unemployed xif Portland, but it
would get the truth from him, if that were possible. tj
In the case of E. R. Parker versus Clyde Mount and others (members of the Oregon State Board fof
Dental Examiners) to require the Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners to give him a license, tr.
Parker has made it impossible for the case to come to trial. l
IF DR. PARKER WAITED THE CASE TO COME TO TRIAL' BEFORE ELECTION DAY, NO
VEMBER 3, WHY DID HE NOT SERVE PAPERS UPON ALL MEMBERS OF THEOREGON STATE
BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, AS NECESSARY? ,
Papers, have been served upon one member of the. Board only, and Dr. Parker knows that papers
must be served upon every member of the Board before the case can come to trial. f
Balked in their desire to show by evidence in court that Dr. E. R. Parker is not qualified torecelve
a license in the State of Oregon, and thus unable to prove by court trial before November 3 .that J)r.
Parker did not pass the State examination, and that his examination papers did not justify givtnl: hifn a
license to practice in Oregon, the Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners will otherwise answer the.Jol
lowing question asked by Dr. Parker in his advertisement of October 9: I
"Will the Trust explain to the voters of Oregon why I am incompetent in this state, and. have bfen
declared competent to practice dentistry in New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California and Can
ada?' ii..
Dir. Parker Has Not Passed One Board
Examination in the United States
e
Here Is Dr. Parker's License Record: -
Have no knowledge, official or otherwise, regis
tration of party. May have gotten in under old law.
H. J. BURKHART,
, Secretary N. Y. State Dental Board.
Records show Parker received license on diploma
in 1897. O. H. SEIFERT,
Sec. State Board ' DentaL Examiners, Illinoi.
License issued January 30, 1897, on diploma from
Philadelphia Dental College issued May 18, 1392.
C A. HERRICK, California
Parker registered 1893. No examination required
at that time. H. F. MINOGUE,?
Registrar Denial Board,' Vancouver, B. .
E. R. Parker never licensed in Maine.
, I. E. PENDLETON,
Secretary Board of Examiners, Maine.
-4
E. R. Parker was not examined in 1892; simply
had 'diploma from college recorded.
A. H. REYNOLDS,
Sec. State Dental Board, Pennsylvania.
-
Parker took examination when I was member of
; .Washington Board and did not obtain license.
WM. B. POWER, Seattle.
The Dentistry Bill is a personal grievance measure, proposed for the sole purpose of gaining a license
for a man who has not passed a State examination in any state in the" United States, and who failed to
pass the Oregon examination. , i
. - - '
Do you want to give Oregon the lowest and loosest dental law, in the United States, for the special
privilege of one man? .
m.
,. : VOTE ; i
316 X Mi
- , - i S 4
Paid advertisement by Leon Cohen, Pendleton Or. ;i
i .a , ' .'t
.Defeat ttltaeeinM MM
Vote - 34-1 X No
h. v -:: .-
.
Arwtliiieat, Oferm Society for Snial Sdnetlen, K. C. Kajrmoaa, Sc7, 838 Xorru Bldf.)
.11
' i.-- '-