The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-10-14
OAKLAND WATERFRONT CASE.
IMPORTANT RULING BY THE ALA
MEDIA SUPERIOR COURT.
The Carpenter Ordinance Admitted
as Evidence-Decided Victory
for the Company.
Special to the REcoRp-US1oS.

OAKLAND, Oct. 13.-The Superior Court
to-day rendered a decision, $4,000 words
in length, admitting in evidence in the
waterfront suit what is known as the
Carpenter ordinance, upon which the
Waterfront Company bases it's claim to
own the water frontage to the extent of
eleven miles in front of Oakland.
The case is being tried by Judges
Greene, Henshaw and Ellsworth, sitting
in bank. The admissibility of this ordi-
nance as evidence, on the ground that it
was illegal and void, was objected to by
the interests adverse to the Water-F Front
Company. The argument on this point
was long and thorough and occupied ten
days.
The court adjourned the hearing ten
days to consider the points raised, with
the above result. This is looked upon as a
very important victory for the Water
Front Company, and is correspondingly
depressing to the citizens of Oakland.
The ordinance in question was the one
which granted the water front of Oakland
to Carpenter, and was passed by the
Trustees of Oakland soon after it's incor-
poration. a synopsis of the decision is
as follows:
The court reviews the title to the tide
lands. 1t finds that the State is the owner
in fee Of all tide and submerged lands by
virtue of its sovereignty. The State had
power to convey such lands to private
ownership, and has done so in innumer-
able Instances That the title taken by
purchaser OF tide lands is subject to para
mount rights of navigation and COM
merce.
It reviews the legislative Acts as to the
tide lands of San Francisco, Benicia and
Martinez, ETC.; holds that the public
policy OF the State is to part with such
lands to private ownership, and that the
L nited States upholds such policy: that
the State granted all of the tide lands to
the town Of Oakland unburdened with
any trust, and in the grant, by express
language. empowered the Trustees to sell
these lands; that the court cannot review
In this form of action any collateral attack
upon the grant to Carpenter upon the ar
gument OF fraud or undue advantage.
1t holds that though the grant Of power
to regulate wharves, etc, to Carpenter
be void, that the void part is severable
from the valid part; that the Town Trus-
tees had powerto grant to Carpenter, and
did by ordinance authorize the grant to
Carpenter OF the tide lands of the town:
that this grant was not beyond the
powers OF the Trustees, who themselves,
and not the court, must be the Judges of
the adequacy and sufficiency of the con-
sideration paid for the land; that the con-
Slu0ralloH pdlo Dy carpenter, to wit,
building wbarves and schoolhouses. was
not an immoral or illegal consideration:
that the grant from the State to the town,
like the grant to the cities of San Fran
cisco, Martinez and Benicia, which cities
We're all empowered to sell their tide
lands into private ownership, was not
burdened with any trust; that the grant to
Carpenter was one on condition subse-
quent, and that the grant might be de-
fGata6 DV q maintenance of tho
ditions; that the Legislature, by Act of
1861, ratified and approved the ordinances
OF the town of Oakland, including the
ordinance granting to Carpenter.
And the court discusses the scope and
power of the Legislature to rectify acts of
municipal corporations.
1t admits in evidence the certified copy
of the record of the first meeting of Town
Trustees upon the authority of the case of
Oakland VS.. Carpenter, and admits the
ordinance granting the tide lands to Car
pentier in evidence.