The morning call., 1892-07-23

(Troporty in a public tIoroWgEfare, olCned
lccted by the Oakland
Company 90 on in peaceful possession of
s10OO0,0OO worth of property, of which
that company does not legally own one
inch.
Where can one find greater steal than
that?
Ii may truly be called the greatest of all
grabs by private companies in modern
times.
Grab-an Carpenter began it and the
Oakland Water Front Company perpetuates
It.
THE CALL to-day shows a picture OF
piece of property at the foot of Washing
ton street, Oakland, On which there is
lumber-yaTd.
That property is In Washington street,
and it belongs TO the city, wheth er any OF
the rest Of the water front does or not.
That street should be opene d to the water
front and should be made public thorough
fare, unless The city should consent 10 lease
Il to some person or corporation TO suoserFe
the purposes of navigation and commerce
But that is only one.
There are a dozen such streets, and the
crocodiles of the creek have their clutches
on them all, and whatever rental comes
from that property goes into the big golfers
at Fourth and Townsend streets.
"CommOdure" WOosev is SAID TO be going
about Oakland telling people that j. l..
Uavie is Offering TO sell his lease 10 the
Southern Pacific.
Davie has two partners IN this lease, j.
n. Ba,sett and r. NJ. Fitzgerald, and to
these gentlemen as well as to Davle num-
Der of individuals, presumably agents Of
Huntington, have gone 10 ask the price
value of the lease and improvements. 10
each and every one the answer mas neen
that to the Southern Pacific or any known
agent of that corporation % transfer OF the
property can or will be made.
Davie, Bassett and Fitzgerald do not claim
foot OF the land covered by their lease.
They leased it from parties who have had
peaceable possession for 30 years. They do
n0E assume to say IN whom the title Is
vested.
They are ready to prove that the Southern
Pacific has not and never had the shadow
of a title to a single foot Of Oakland's water
front.
J. NJ. Bassett, who has given longer and
more thorough study TO the Carpenter title
than any other man in the State, says the
claim under which the Southern Pacific has
held the water front is wholly and entirely
void because the action OF the Board Of
Trustees of 1852, even if the members were
honest, which 1t is now known three Of the
five were not, transferring the class OF prop
erty in question from a municipal corpor-
alton to private ownership, was IN direct
opposition 10 all recognized rulings IN courts
OF law and equity.
The board could not transfer the power
conferred upon it by the act of the Legis-
lature to Carpenter or any other indi.
vidual.
Carpenter knew that he and accompllces
tried to perpetrate fraud and all his sub
sequent acts were so many attempts to cure
or cover up this fraud.
The lease was possible; the fee simple
transfer impossible.
The Southern Pacific has followed the
same line.
1t has tried to heal what CARPENTER con-
fessed was a fraud by a series Of frauds.
1t has bought Councilmen.
1t has bribed Mayors.
1t has corrupted courts.
1t has made lawyers forswear them.
selves.
1t has done all this in an effort to accom-
plsh an impossibility.
The courts have all affirmed that water
front along navigable water cannot pass to
private ownership.
BY changing the ordinance from lease
to deed Carpenter defeated his lease had
any one cared to Dullify il.
But the lease has expired.
The deed could not be executed.
This is the beginning and the end.
The fact that three Of the five Trustees
were partners and could not therefore law
fully act in a proposition to lease the cor
porstion's property TO themselves cuts no
figure in the case.
Carpenter induced the board to attemnt
what 1t had no legal power to perform. 1t
could not transfer the corporations prop
erty to private hands.
The ordinance of 1852 transferring the
water front to Carpenter being void a sub
sequent ordinance confirming the void act
has no force.
The town corporation not having the
original power to make the transfer could
not ratlfy it,
What an agent or Trustee has no power
to do he cannot ratify.
The power to ratify necessarily supposes
the power to make the contract in the frs t
instance
Confirmation cannot operate upon an act
which is void in law; 1t merely confirms its
infrmity.
Defective execution of law cannot be
cured by subsequent legislation.
"A void proceeding cannot be made valid
Dy asuDsequent law OF the Legislature.
a Legislature cannot interpret what the
Law Is or has been, but only what 1t shall be.
III is the province of the courts to declare
the Law Of an existing statute.
Ratification TO be effective must be made
with the full knowledge of the facts relat-
Ing 10 the act ratified.
These are established principles of law
which Mr.. Bassett says fix the void and
voidable character of the Southern Pacific's
title 10 the water front of Oakland.
The compdny's only standing in court is
what 1t Can obtain by the use of money.
And on the 2lst day of July, 1892, repre-
sentative of the Southern Pacific goes over
to Oakland, meets by agreement the Board
of Trade and wants TO compromise.
He talks for three hours abont the unas-
sailable character OF the Southern Pacific
title as filtered through Carpenter, but he
wants to compromise.
Did any one ever hear of the Southern
Pacific letting go of a part OF anything it
had the remotest hopes OF keeping?
Title iron-bound, copper-fastened and
brass mounted, lease can't be disputed, but
the company wants 10 compromise
The Board of Trade very wisely listened,
but said nothing.
f,Ia Rnard of Trada knoMs az everybody