The Placer herald., 1859-03-19
SPEECH OF MR.. ANDERSON
IN THE SENATE OF CAL, MARCH 9TH, 1859

Ine Specul OrUef OI the uby Oeitbc ulli A'o ~
-"The Parsons Bulkhead Bill'-so called, was
taken up, the question being Shall the bill pass?
Mr.. ANDERSON said he desired to occupy the at
tention of the Senate a short time. while he said
few words He had q great diffidence in touch
ing at all a subject relating to San francisco. lie
would be glad 10 be released from the response
bility of touching this subject at all. but he knew
his constituents required him to look into matters
of this kind with jealous eye He was particu-
larly tilnid of the very name OF water lot There
was something in it that was startling to him-to
his constituency, at any rate lie believed this
feeling to be true of all members OF this house
representing districts out of San francisco. But
in accepting the office of a Senator he had taken
upon himself certain responsibility, and he must
stand up to that responsibility ana act the part OF
Senator on this on all other questions, taking
his chances of the judgment of the future. He
was willing to do it upon this question. Senate
bill No. 40 did not entirely meet his appreciation
Senators would recolect that he had endeavored
to have Sec. ii stricken out-that section that
gave to the city of San Francisco seven per cent.
of the gross proceeds of this Dock and Wharf
Company's receipts from the works specified in
the bill 1t is true this was to be received in COM
mutation of city and county taxes. and licences,
| ut he did not like such tradeS-lt was not lair
and Just to the rest of the State That was voted
down. both in Committee of the Whole and in
Senate He acquiesced in the decision OF ma-
had been before the Legislature for three or four
years. Last session, he remembered, there were
seven bills introduced upon it-three in the SEN
ate and four in the Assembly. Senators repre-
senting that district urged that the bulkhead was
necessary last session. and this session also they
had shown their disposition to have the LeSisla-
ture act upon it, During the ninth session, he re-
membered the Senator from San Mateo was very
much in favor of it. But he has found quite re-
Gently that there is no immediate necessity for the
work, and still further that it is a franchise be-
longing to the city. Why has he advocated any
action of the legislature, if our action is illegit-
mate?
If this session there was no necessity for this
work, then Senator'S from that district had grossly
deceived him. But he had taken the trouble to
look into the matter little himself, and from all
the lights before him he was persuaded that the
city of San Francisco, for its preservation, as well
as for the preservation of the harbor needed this
bulkhead. The Senator from San Mateo seemed
to lay great stress upon the fact that they were
taking away the rights of the city of San Fran
cisco-robbing the city of San Francisco of the
last and most sacred franchises If he (Mr. Az
believed this he would cast his vote against the
bill. But he held that the city Of San Francisco,
through its authorities. forfeited the trust which
she received from the State in 1851. What was
that city to do? The Senator from San Mateo re-
fcrred to this Act (of lS5D as the title deed n
the city of San Francisco to the water front He
(Mr. a would refer to the 4th section Of that Act
where would be found these words: Sec. 4. That
the boundary line described in section first of this
Act shall be and remain a permanent water front
of said city; the authorities of which shall keep
clear and free from all distractions whatsoever
the space beyond said line, to the distance of five
hundred yards thereirom.' The city had not
done 50. She had neglected TO dredge these
wharvcs. They had not kept clear this water line
front, but had allowed it to shoal from the great
a. Al q
certain places This was proved ly the eXplora-
tions of scientific men made since lo53-much
better evidence than any ones opinion. Such was
the evidence of the manner in which the city of
San Francisco had discharged the trust reposed in
her by the Legislature of 1851. He maintained
that the Legislature of this State owed to the city
of San Francisco nothing. far rs this oitv front
was concerned. That that water front was sa-
cred franchise TO the city of San Francisco he
could not see how the Senator from San Matco
could maintain. The very last clause of this title
deed was in these words Nothing in this Act
shall he construed surrender. by the State. of
its right to regulate the construction of wharvcs
and other improvements, so as they shall not in
terfere with the shipping and commercial interests
of San Francisco. Here is a reservation of the
right to regulate the construction Of UhdrreS
0nd either Improvements to the legislature. in
this title deed. The repealed laws which The Sen
ator has read, made subsequent to the foregoing.
simply power to control and regulate the
wharvcs, for police purposes.
This sea wall when completed is to be one hum
dred and ten feet wide. and is to remain open as
public strcct-no PERSONS title to lands is to be
ul1cc ctcd--that which is now street is to remain
so.
This bill did not propose to take the regulation
of the dock police from the city of San Francis
CO.. All that was necessary for the carrying out
of proper police regulations was retained, and es
pecally reserved to that city.
But the city is not the party that is to build and
own the wharves and charge toll on them in the
futurc-those wharves that may be constructed
running from this sea wall at right angles, out en-
tircly beyond the city front as fixed by law, and
this is called robbing the city. Why, the gentle
mans argument (Mr. Phelps') led to this absurd
i:y that the State of California having granted
to the city of San Francisco to a certan line,
it necessarily followed that the city had all be-
yond that line All this talk about "the last and
most sacred franchise of the city of San Francis
CO." to his (Nlr. Anderson's) mind amounted to
nothing at all. The State never parted with this
right, but if the Legislature had once granted u
power to the city of San Francisco to regulate or
have the control of certain water lot property,
upon certain conditions. and her agents do not
comply with them, it is like any other power
once granted and not complied with-it could
be retractcd.
The Senator desires to maintain the good faith
of the State to its citizens and retain the present
line as the permanent front.-so does he-but if
you allow your harbor to fill up. all the statutes
that ever have or ever will be made, cannot re-
tain that line as the permanent front for COM
mercial purposes-the salvation of these prop
erty holders depends upon keeping this mud
within bounds
AS to the necessity of this work, there seemed
to be dividing opinion respecting it. He thought
with the Senator from Yuba, that. so far as the
testimony before the committee in San Francisco
had been taken, he regarded it as favorable to
the proposition contained in Senate bill No. 40
He wishe., in the first place, to call the attention
o. Senators to the fact, that it was commerce
that makes our cities. 1t is the concentration
of the white sal-the steam driven keel and the