The morning call., 1893-08-22
seeing and nroteeting her future interest,"

seeing and protecting her future interest
against designing men.
For the same principle In law IL for no other
reason, that the property of an individual can
noi D. aleDated from him during his minority
Oakland should be protected now against the
asserted conveyance TO Carpenter in 1852
FOR the case of the individual infant the pro-
tecfing arm of the law Is thrown over him, not
alone 10 protect his immediate right ,s minor,
Ont Tor the protection of those who may come
dIter hIn 'hls heirs and assigns"
IL Carpenters claims are valid Oakland
STANDS to-day in The position of man whose
rights were impaired years ago by guardians
curing MS minority, owning property now
fronting on dedicated public street without
the right TO Open or use his front door for
exit or entrance.
Ihe slmie Is not overdrawn, for the Oakland
nafD9r mas never at any time since the Mexican
treaty been out OF the jurisdiction OF the United
otateS. he harbor line established and i'm
proved Dy the Congress OF the United States
IS IN effect public street, public highway
dedicated 10 commerce. he dedicated public
streets OF Oakland opening uUon that highway
are so many front doors for public entrance
ana exit, and 1t would appear that no power
less man the Government of the United States
can lawfully restrict the citizens OF Oakland
from tnelr lree uSe unrestricted by private
inter eSts.
II CaTpentier's claims are valid Oakland
STANDS to-day. with $4,000 inhabitants. a
monumental victim of fraud or folly COM
mltled by her guardians nearly half a century
ago. when she had but "sixty or sixty-five in
6abltants" Would il be possible for Oaklands
claims was legally done IN 1852?
Changed conditions. changed values OF to-day
In property and rights CLAIMED TO have been
alenated In 1852 cut no figure in the case be-
yond showing Ihe enOrmty of fraud or folly
pract1ced when the city's interests were either
not honestly guarded or not properly appre-
ciated.
II the conveyance fencing in Oakland from
the use Of her water frontage looks fraudulent
now, 1t must have looked so then TO those who
saw far enough, i.e., "a fraud practiced upon an
Infant by or through its guardians" That
they failed to see The fraud does not make
their action less subversion OF their powers.
Some one evidently did see IL, from the at
tempt 10 fortlfy "the fencing In' by an act OF
the Legislature. Could the legislation, how
ever, substantiate power that did not exist
Had The Legislature Inherent power, above and
independent of the Council. TO deprive Oakland
of her vested rights in frontage upon declared
navigable channel under the jurisdiction of the
United States?
Independent OF the peculiar feature in the
Oakland waterfront conveyance the cutting
on from that water front of dedicated public
streets is a feature which seems 10 appeal to
higher law, as "contra bOnas leges." The
Chicago decision also helps Oakland to "her
own again" by declaring. in effect. that when
final public protest tntervenes the inherent
rights OF "the people" are not impaired by pri-
vate interests or privileges, even when the
latter have been for a time established by tacit
sufferance or consent AN OLD CITIZEN.