The morning call., 1893-07-25

Pacific was in pOss essiOn OF the wharf
from January l. 1890. until July 6. 1888.
they deny that the tracks on the Broad
way wharf are necessary for the transac-
tion of the railroad company's business, or
that the properly has been in riRhtful pos
session uf the complainant and Its prede-
cessors for twenty-,hree years.
As 10 the fact that on July last the
city officials took possession OF the wharf
on the ground that it was part Of public
street. which they had an official right TO
open-that they admit.
The status of the various defendants is
then given. and statement Is made in
Justification OF the action OF Mayor Par
dee and the City Council in taking possess
sion of the foot of Broadway. In pursu-
ance of an ordinance passed before the
com plainant entered into possession.
The lands situated within the estuary of
San Antonio are averred to be part of the
water front of The city and within Oak
lands limits under the provisions of the
Incorporating act approved May 4, 1852
which Is quoted as to the city's boun-
diaries.
1t is also set forth that the interests of
commerce with many inland counties of
the State require Oakland harbor for an
outlet, and that the United States Govern
nent is now improving the San Antonio
estuary as partof said harbor. The reasons
for keeping the water there open and nav
igabIe are. therefore. urgent; likewise for
keeping Broadway clear and un INSTRUCTED
to the waters edge.
Horace w. Carpentier's title is explained
to have been derived from an authorized
grant or permit given by President Amede
Marier OF the Board Of Trustees of Oak
land, May 81. 1852. in pursuance of an
ordinance passed May q, 1852. but this is
accompanied ny 4 claim that all the right,
title and interest Of Carpenter and his
successors have ceased by the ordinance
under which Mr.. Marisr acted having
since been repealed. to wit: on February
2. 1880.
The answer goes on to recite the facts
that competing ferry lines have been
established, and that public interests de-
mand that free access to the Broadway
wharf should be granted. Upon said
wharf the complainant railroad company
was an intruder, and had obstructed a
public street by fence and a building.
The story of the days proceedings on
the memorable 9th inst. follows, and the
refusals OF the railroad company's agents
to remove tho distractions whom officially
demanded to 90 80 arc recounted.
That the city was aided or abe tied in
any way BY J. L. Davle or j. NJ. Bassett
of the Davlo Ferry and Transportation
Company is denied toward the end. FL
nally conclusion is reached with an allie
CATION that the real object and purpose of
the railroad company's bill of com oil ain
is evidently to exclude the public from all
access to the water front OF Oakland, by
wav of Broadway, ana a general denial is
aimed at the Southern Pacific's charges of
unlawful combination. conspiracy and
confederacy.
A demurrer was also set up by the de-
PENDANTS, that is, by defendants Pardee,
Barnard. Smell, Towle. Dalton, Marshall,
Manuel. Hoffman. Barstow, Dow, Capell,
Harrison aud Rutherford. The reasons
for the demurrer given. we're:
That by compiananrs bill 1t appeared
that 1t ia exhibited against both those de-
fendants and the city OF Oakland for tw o
li5tip ct matters and causes which have no
relation to each other. In one the defend
ants named were in no way intere sted.
What the exception Is taken to is that the
cause of suit against all the defendants
named for trespass and the cause of
action against the city of Oakland alone
to quiet the title to tho property are thus
united In one acton. whereas In the latter
cause the defendants named are not inter-
ested or concerned. and ought not to be
implicated.
By Joining these two distinct matters
incoprruo,IsIy together the bill of CON-
plant is drawn out to a considera BILE
length and tho proceedings In the progress
of the suit must be Intricate and pr0llx In
consequences. entailing unnecessary ex-
pense upon the gentlemen mentioned.
In tho argument. which consumed the
day, Mr.. Harvey Brown took very active
part also. Hc read rules 81 and IS of the
court as applied to suits for injunction
and with reference to the admissibility OF
further proof In opposition TO the aver
ment of the defendants he would show
that the property in question had never
been dedicated for the purpose Of public
street
He went over the variou. items OF ex-
pensc the Southern Pacifc's predecessors
mad devoted to dredging at the foot of
Broadway, and commended that inasmnch
az. originally. the water there was very
shallow and the channel very narrow, but
hAd been despened and widsned at private