The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-01-25

mile. the grant In the case at bar IS nearly ten.
III he area Of the Chicago grant was a thousand
acres The grant In the case at bar is near 5000
acres II whole or part OF the harb0r was
conveyed 10 the one instance, In the other
there was the whole OF the haroOr
OF the city Of Oakland and all OF
the water frontage besides. BY reason and
comparison, therefore, II Tie former be held to
be Invalid as being an abdlcatOn ''of the gen.
eral control Of The State over lands under naY-
gaOle waters OF an entire harbor or bay OF a sea
or la e" go must the lalter. IL In the Chicago
case the abdicaiton WIS not consistent with the
exercise Of that trust which requires the govern
m-nt OF The state 10 preserve such wat-rs for
the use OF the public" 10 certainly was not In
tie case at bar. "ln the ADMINISTERS OF gov
eTnmeni the use OF such powers may for linz
tied PERIOD" says Mr.. Justice Field. 'be dele
gated 20 a municipality or other body; but there
always remains with the State the right TO re-
woke those powers and exercise them IN a more
utect manner aud one eOnfOrmable 10 It's
wishes"
Here Is the Nub
In the light OF this decision II must be held
that tbe , ate OF California could not directly
have conveyed 10 an iadividua or private cor
poTatlOn the whole hafb3r aud wafer front OF
The city Of . kiand. and what she could not do
Directly he town OF Oakland could not iiself ac-
eompilsh. II would seem 10 be that the town
OF Oak and Ing creature Of tile State and
part Of lis government, was selected by he
state as the trustee OF this property. The town
had no greater power Of disposition over tile
property Than had tie sta e Itself. Since The
Slate could not dispose OF the property In
ana neither could ratily or confirm any such
attempted disposition If f. In the former
opinion rendered IN This ease ibis court held that
The lands IN question were not subject TO any
trust, and the opinion 10 That regard rested for
is SUPPORT upon tie decisions above cited. State
and FEEDER AZ and not least, upon the decisions of
our SuIrem Court as 10 The beach and water
lots Of San Francisco. The Legislature author.
lied The city OF san Francisco 10 sell al public
auction and INTO private ownership almost the
entite wat eT frontage OF San Francisco after
dividing lie submerged lands into lots. IL Is
true that tie sale being at public auction many
individuals might have purchased portions Of
these lands. but on the other hand there was
nothing 10 fact or IN law TO prevent any single n
diVidual or corpora don from concentrating
ownership OF all these lots 10 bis or It's own name
by purchase.
In other words, the whole water frontage OF
san Francisco might have been purchased by
one individual; and IN any event II was The sale
Substantially Of The whole into private owner
ship. The leading case upon this subject was
Holiday vs. Frisble N5 Cal. 63O). a decision
rendered by Mr. Justice Field, then Chief jus
lice OF Tie Supreme Court OF California, IN which
lie says: THE beach and water lot property
mentioned Ia tue act Is not devoted by III grant
OF the state TO any specific public purpose or
made subject 10 the provision OF any trust by the
CITY. The Interest OF the city is absolutely
qualihed by no conditions, ana subject
Court Of the State following aud relying
on Holiday vs. FIisbe, declared IN San Fran
cisco vs. SpfOul (S4 Cal, l34) as TO this property,
the light OF tho city Is absolute ana total and
as free from irust as that OF any private pro-
pretor." says MIR. Justice Field In the late chi.
cage decision: 1T Is The settled law OF this
country that tie ownership Of and dominion and
sovereignty over lands covered by tide waters
within tile limits OF the several States belongs 10
the respective States within which they are
iound, Win the cOnsequ MT right TO use or dis
pose vi any portion thereof, when that can be
done Without substantial impairment OF the in
iefeS OF the public IN the waters. and subject
always 10 the paramount right of Congress 10
control thelr navigation"
Going Back to Former Field Decision
And IN support of this doctrine We are referred
70 f0ldrds LeSsees vs. Hagan, 3 New 212, and
Weber VS.. HaIbOr Commissioners IS Wall Al
The decision In Weber vs. HaIbor Commission
ers. az above referred TO, Is Itself decision OF
Justice Field. and 1t Will be read In vain TO find
any limit alton upon the right OF the Slate TO sell
TIDE lands INTO private ownership; but It's lam
guage Is thar the State has tile right 10 dispose
OF HE title TO any part Of said soils In such man
ner as she might deem proper subject only 10
The paramount right OF navigation. The disiinc-
lion between the limitation as expressed In sub
Ject only of the earlier decision aud the subj ct
always OF The last decision coupled with the
futther limitation upon the power OF sale mot
expressed 10 The declson) VIII u that can
DC done without material impairment of the
interest OF tie public In The water" Is manifest.
I'VE cannot II Is true, E" says JuslIce Field. 'cle
any authority where a grant OF this kind has
been held invalid, for we believe that no Instance
exists where the harbor OF a great city aud It's
commerce nave been allowed 10 pass into the
control OF any private e0rporaLI0n."
Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion OF the
court In oakland VS.. Carpenter, 81 Cal. Gas.
II IS true That at that time Oakland was not a