Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-11-30
card from nr. G. J. Grimm.

card FROM Mf. Gs }. Gr11hltn.
L. p. Lunt, Esq, Right of Way agent
Southern Pacific Company:
DEAR SR-Your communication rela
tive to the right of way across the Bris
walter vineyard has been received. Il
reply thereto allow me to say that an
profoundly gratified at receiving you
proposition, the first that you have takel
the pains to make me since you appeared
in Los Angeles as the representative o
your company. The substance of you
letter resolves itself into desire on you
part to have route No. 4, or the uppe
surveyed route, donated to your com
pany, in order that you may operatt
your line of railroad along the same be
tween Alameda and San Pedro streets.
Now, sir, have objected to this route
because, as you well know, of the exces
sive damage the property would sustain
because of its adoption, and further, be-
cause l believed, and still believe, that
another route could be used with much
less detriment to the best interests of the
tract and without disadvantage to your
company.
Route number four enters the vine
yard about 200 feet north of its south
west corner, on San Pedro street, thence,
after traversing distance of several hun
dred feet, it curves and crosses the vine
yard diagonally.
Now, sir, after your experience in the
real estate market during the past few
months you certainly are aware that the
diagonal cutting Of this property by a
steam railroad cannot but depreciate its
value to an alarming degree. Particu.
larly would this depreciation be felt
when the tract is subdivided, as it is
bound to be.
l objected, and do object, to crossing
by route number four because route
number three is quite advantageous and
convenient for your company, and
further because it would leave nearly
thirty acres more land lying south of it
than the ordinary requirements of the
case demand; and the greater the acre
age left south of your line the greater the
damage inflicted on the property.
City Surveyor Lambie and ex City
Surveyor Knox, as we'll as Mr.. j. P.
Culver, they being familiar with the sur
veys, will bear me out in the assertion
that route number three is perfectly
practicable for the needs of your COM
pany, and that it is far more practicable
than the proposed line along Pine street.
While stating in your favor of the 2Sth
instant some things that are true, you
also misstate-or fail to state at all
many important facts in connection with
this matter. You give the distance
across the vineyard by route No. as
being 900 feet. Do you not know that
the distance is more than 1000 feet?
You say that the San Pedro-street
frontage of the Briswalter tract is 400
feet. Do you not know that it is but
$3.50 feet?
Do you not remember that when you
first came to Les Angeles in connection
with this business that offered to favor a
sale of route No. l, including thirteen
acres OF land, for 81 $50 per acre, and
route No. 2, including about twenty
seven acres, for 1880 per acre, and
route No. 3 (your own survey, including
about fifty acres, for $1,000 per acre
while | never made, nor suffered to be
made, nor favored any proposition in
connection with route No. 4 for 81 900 per
acre, or for any other sum?
Is it not fact that on the 10th day of
last August, while We were in the midst
of friendly negotiations, and when we
were, in the most amicable manner, dis
cussing the different routes, their merits
and advantages, a corps OF men under
your authority, and by your instructions,
entered upon the Briswalter premises
and mutilated and destroyed 526 full
bearing vines? Mr.. Lunt, you have not
deigned to offer me any explanation OF
this gross violation Of the common code
that holds and governs among gentle
men.
And, sir, up to that time, you had
never offered one dollar for any right of
way across that property, nor had you
made me any proposition of any nature
whatsoever, looking toward the attain
ment of right of way.
Is it not true that you favor route mum.
Der four and denounce all others as i'm
practicable, simply because l frustrated
your plans for stealing march through
the vineyard, and had to adopt the shot.
gun policy in order to persuade your en-
ployees against further inroads?
You denied this through the newspa-
pers before had asserted the facts, and
when did, in reply to your denial, pub
licly assert them you were annoyed and
provoked, and at once proceeded to make
this right-of-way question a personal
grievance of your own. In brief, is it not
because we had an unmistakable differ
ence that you exerted yourself to infu-
ence your company to expend nearly
800, 900 on the Pine street route rather
than offer the Briswalter people one dol
lar more than the Southern Pacific Com
pany's money ed proposition of $4,000,
and neat passenger and freight station
In conclusion-do you not know that
there is fully three miles of property
fronting on San Pedro street, nine-tenths
OF which is proportionately more valua-
BILE than the Briswalter place ,and equally
affected by the present track, while none
of it will be damaged by the right OF way
you ask for IN your letter? Knowing
these facts how can you consider it other
than the expression OF the most sublime
"cheek" to ask the Biswalter owners to
suffer all the injury?
Yours respectfully,
G. J. GRIFFITH.
Los ANGELES, November 20, 1888.
Alhambra and San Gabriel.