[No. 20452. Department Two. May 12, 1927.]
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of White
Pine Sash Company, Plaintiff, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT FOR FERRY COUNTY et al.,
Respondents. «1»
[1] EMINENT DOMAIN (15) - DELEGATION OF POWER - PRIVATE WAY
FOR LOGGING ROADS. Rem. Comp. Stat., SSSS 6747-6749, authorizing
the condemnation of a right of way for a logging road is not
violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal
constitution or SS 16, of Art. 1, of the state constitution.
[2] SAME (39, 40). A finding of public necessity for the condemnation
of a right of way for a logging road is sustained, where it
appears that the relator has purchased very extensive
timber tracts from the United States which it was required
to remove at the rate of 30,000,000 feet annually, and has
acquired most of its right of way for thirty miles to the
nearest feasible connection with a trans-continental
railway line.
Certiorari to review an order of the superior court
for Ferry county, Neal, J., entered January 6, 1927,
declaring a public use and necessity in eminent domain
proceedings for a logging right of way. Affirmed.
1 Reported in 255 Pac. 1025.
688 STATE EX REL. WHITE PINE SASH CO. v. SUP'R CT.
Opinion Per PARKER, J. 143 Wash.
Alex M. Winston, for relator.
Davis, Hell & Davis, for respondents.
PARKER PARKER, J. - This is a certiorari proceeding in this
court wherein the relator, White Pine Sash Company,
seeks review and reversal of a judgment of the superior
court for Ferry county adjudicating in favor of the
Hedlund Lumber & Manufacturing Company the necessity
for, and its eminent domain right to acquire by
condemnation, a right of way for its proposed logging
railroad over land of the relator as a private way of
necessity to enable it to remove to market a large
amount of timber from lands belonging to the United
States, which timber it has purchased from the United
States. The condemnation proceeding was prosecuted
and the judgment in question rendered under ch. 133,
Laws of 1913, being SSSS 6747 et seq., of Remington's
Compiled Statutes.
The Hedlund Lumber & Manufacturing Company is
a large concern maintaining its plant at Spokane. It
has purchased from the United States approximately
337,000,000 feet of standing merchantable timber,
covering approximately 121,000 acres of government land in
Ferry county, known as the Twin Lakes unit, and has
also purchased from the United States approximately
67,000,000 feet of standing merchantable timber,
covering approximately 8,300 acres of government land in
Ferry county, known as the Sherman Creek unit. By
its purchase contracts with the United States, it is
required to remove the timber from these units at the
rate of 30,000,000 feet per annum. The Twin Lakes
unit lies on the west side of the Columbia river,
bordering thereon, being some twenty miles southerly from
Hedlund Spur, a station on the Great Northern Railway.
The Sherman Creek unit lies some four miles
STATE EX REL. WHITE PINE SASH CO. v. SUP'R CT. 689
May 1927 Opinion Per PARKER, J.
west of the Columbia river and some ten miles
southwesterly from Hedlund Spur. The Great Northern
Railway crosses the Columbia river from the east to the
west side about one mile south of Hedlund Spur. There
is no railroad on the west side of the Columbia river
south of that crossing, nor any railway shipping point
on the west side of the Columbia river nearer to either
of the units in question than Hedlund Spur, though
there are some nearer shipping points upon the Great
Northern Railway east of the Columbia river. The
Hedlund Lumber & Manufacturing Company has
constructed its proposed logging railroad, from a
connection with the Great Northern Railway at Hedlund Spur
southerly towards its timber units, for a distance of
some two miles, and has acquired most of the right of
way for the remainder thereof to each of its timber
units. The condemnation here in question has to do
with the acquiring of less than two miles of right of
way over the lands of the relator.
[1] Apparently, the principal contention made in
behalf of the relator seems to be that ch. 133, Laws of
1913, p. 412, is unconstitutional, in that to give it effect
according to its terms will result in taking private
property for a private use and thus deprive relator of its
property, in violation of the due process of law guaranty
and the eminent domain restrictions of SS 3 and
16, of Art. I of our state constitution; and also in
violation of the guaranties of SS 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the constitution of the United States. Our
decisions in State ex rel. Mountain Timber Co. v. Superior
Court, 77 Wash. 585, 137 Pac. 994, State ex rel.
Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 503,
144 Pac. 722, and State ex rel. Eastern R. & L. Co.
v. Superior Court, 127 Wash. 30, 219 Pac. 857, are decisive
against this contention, wherein we upheld the
690 STATE EX REL. WHITE PINE SASH CO. v. SUP'R CT.
Opinion Per PARKER, J. 143 Wash.
constitutionality of ch. 133, Laws of 1913, as not violative
of any fights guaranteed by the state or federal
constitution.
[2] It is further contended that, in any event, upon
the trial of the condemnation proceeding in the superior
court for the determination of the question of necessity,
the evidence does not sustain the judgment. A reading
of the evidence seems to us so decisive in support of the
judgment as not to call for our here analyzing it with a
view of demonstrating the correctness of the judgment.
That has been well done by the trial judge in his
memorandum opinion leading to his conclusion, with
which we agree, that there has been shown a reasonable
necessity for the Hedlund Lumber & Manufacturing
Company acquiring the right of way in question.
The judgment is affirmed.
MACKINTOSH, C. J., TOLMAN, FRENCH, and MITCHELL,
JJ., concur.