The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-04
HOW NOT TO DO 1T
Why San Pedro Harbor
Was Not Developed.
THE RAILROADS FINE HAND.
A Complaint Indicating the Use of a
Dummy Company for an I'm
scrupulous Corporation.

Some little more light on the methods OF
the Southern Pacific Railroad and its in
struments comes In the form Of complaint
filed in the Superior Court yesterday.
The complainant is r. c. Sauffley. who
sues John W. Pearson, the San Pedro Har-
Dor, Dock and Land Association IA corpora
tion) and the Pacific Improvement Company
"a corporation) to compel them TO perform
the terms of an agreement.
Some four years ago the harbor Of San
Pedro, about twelve miles from Los An
geles, came into public prominence. 1t was
in the hands of the San Pedro Harbor. Dock
and Land Association. with a capital of
$40, 000 600, and it was to be made the finest
harbor in Southern California. United
States Engineer Mendell inspected it and
reported favorably on its possibilities.
Suddenly the boom died away.
1t was rumored at the time that the
Southern Pacific had nipped the project in
the bud, and the fact that the corporation
began to boom Santa Monica's advantages
shortly after seemed to corroborate the ru-
mors. But nothing definite was known as
to why the San Pedro Hsrbor. Dock and
Land Association subsidized.
Now comes Sauffiey aud says that on
January IS. 1888. Charles Croker for him.
self and the Pacific Improvement Company
Chen composed of himself, c. p. Hunting
ton, Leland Stanford and the Hopkins
estate) purchased 10000 shares OF stock of
the San Pedro company for 500 600 and had
tran sferred 10 them besides 2l,00U shares,
10000 OF which belonged to one w. E.
Brown. This gave them q controlling in
terest or 81, coo shares out of 100000.
In the agreement referred TO the Pacific
improvement Company agrees to develop
the harbor to the extent of $4,000 within
four years.
In the event Of the four years elapsing
without the terms of the contract being
fulfilled Croker and the improvement COM
pany were to return Brown his &c. 600 shares,
and he was to have the option for one year
after said return to purchase all their re-
ma ming shares at SO per share.
Did the Pacific Improvement Company
perform its part Of the contract?
The four years have passed and San
Pedro Is not yet 'the best harbOr and port
of entry on the Pacific Coast south of San
Francisco" as the company promised.
There is NO waterfront railway. no first
class pile or steel DOCK" no three large,
safe and substantial slips for the largest
steamers on the Pacific Coast" no grand
hotel. ETC.. ETC., as specifically promised
Nor was the company apparently content
with doing nothing for the harbor, but in
the language of the complaint, they, the
said Stanford and Huntington and each
one of them. wholly disregarding the obli-
cation of their said agreement In which
they agreed TO never do any act or thing to
close up, obstruct or prevent the full de-
velopment and use OF the harbor to the
greatest possible advantage to the people OF
the southern portion Of the State of Cali
fornia, have, and each one of them has,
done every act and thing which could be
done, aud have entered into combinations.
plots, plans and schemes with persons hav-
ing adverse interests TO the said harbor of
San Pedro, and have used all the influence
which they possessed to close up and pre-
vent the full development and use of said
harbOr to the greatest possible advantage
10 the people OF the southern portion of the
State of California; and have. and each of
them has, used all his influence TO induce
the Government Of the United States not to
carry cut the plans laid out and approved
by Colonel Mendell. United States Engineer,
for the building of breakwater and the
improvement Of the said San Pedro harbor."
Sauff1ey appeared as the assignee of
Brown. and demanded back Browns 10000
shares and rendered S50.666 81 for the re-
naming interest as provided by the option
reserved in the agreement.
The complaint is a very long one, and
contains reference to prior claims on the
San Pedro association. which complicated
the conyeyances to the Pacific Improvement
Company, and were covered by an indem-
nifty deed IN one instance.
Inc cOmpialDanl anticipates some 0pp0-
sition TO his prayer on the part of the San
Pedro Company which, he says, will obey
the Pacific Improvement company.
All this will be done by the latter "in
order" lie says, Ito close out competition
with freight and traffic over the railroad
known as the Southern Pacific Railroad of
Kentucky, and In order to depreciate sur
rounding and adjacent properties. and in
order to benefit said Leland Stanford and
c. p. Huntington, the Croker estate and
the Hopkins estate. the owners of the said
Southern Pacific Railroad of Kentucky,
corporation"
The court is asked whether or n In its
judgment the Southern Pacific should not
be joined as a defendant In tue action. The
reason of this innocent inquiry is thus
stated: That said corporation, Pacific Im-
provement Company. can either have as
sets or be deprived of all its property, real,
personal and mixed; and its rights and
privileges in taking and performing con-
tracts relating to the construction, equip
meDt or repair of railroads and other cor
porate work; and can be rendered impecca.
BILE and be deprived of great aid ana power
and all Its assets by the said Leland Stan
ford and c. Z. Huntington at any time they
so desire; aud that any judgment for sde-
Quate damages obtained by plaintiff could
be rendered valueless against said corpora
ton, Pacific Improvement Company, which
is part aud portion of the legal mechanism
and machinery wherein and whereby was
and is concealed the personal identity of
Leland Stanford, G. 2. Huntington and
said Charles Croker in his lifatimeD