The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-07-20
FIGHT FOR TITLE.
California Against the
Railroad.
WATER FRONTS INVOLVED.
A Supreme Court Commissioner
Taking Testimony.
OAKLAND WELL REPRESENTED.
Attorney.Gen Hart and Harvey
S. Brown Differ as to the
Admission OF Records.

The scene of the battle between the
State and the Southern Pacific Company
for the possession of the water fronts
claimed by both and held by the latter has
shifted from Washington to this city.
The suit against the company was
brought in the United States Supreme
Court by Attorney General Hart, who
sought to recover the property for the
people on the ground that the State
had no right 10 part with ITS water
fronts to any person or corporation.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the
statements of counsel for both parties and
for the city of Oakland. which was deeply
interested in the case, sent Hon. w. A.
Maury to this city to take testimony. He
was Assistant United States Attorney
under the last administration.
Mr.. Maury. upon his arrival, notified all
parties interested to appear in room 60 OF
the Appraisers building yesterday alter
noon. Clement Bennett was appointed
stenogrnpher and the hearing commenced.
Attorney General w. II. II. Hart and
A R Cotton appeared for the State.
Harvey s. Brown represented the de-
PENDANT corporation and James A. John-
son, City Attorney, w. X. Davis. ID. A.
L Z. L
peared for Oakland.
"In view of tie fact" said the Attorney
General, that the amended answer Ia the
amended bill of complaint in my Judg-
ment admits The cause of action pleaded
by the State, and as Mr.. Brown desires to
offer further testimony. lconsider 1t proper
for him to offer his testimony at this time
before the State offers any 1urther testi-
mnny."
Attorney Brown was satisfied and ready.
He called to the stand George +. Allardt,
civil engineer and surveyor, who mas re-
sided forty years in this State. Allardt
was shown the official map of San Fran
cisco, prepared by Humphreys In $780, a. d
was asked to trace on it the charter line Of
the city. He stated that the line strikes
the shore of Mission Bay near South
street, and if projected easterly would
strike Central Basin. He then Indicated
the as,ern boundary as II existed in 1850
"We will now" said Attorney Brown.
Submit the statute of California relating
to tide lands passed in 1851"
II object" said Hart, because the
statute does not affect any of the premises
involved n this litigation"
1--WE are Offering this testimony" BroN n
answered, 40 show that every depart
ment of the State has determined that tide
lands and submerged lands may De law
fnfly granted; and for the purpose of
showing that a property rule has been es-
tabished by each and every department
of the government of the State. l then
propose to introduce other statutes and
Supreme Court decisions bearing on the
subject"
hart again objected You seemed to
be trying TO establish a CUSTOM" ne
argued, (which in order to be custom
must be of such an extent as to cover
space of time that runs back beyond the
memory of man. The act permitting A
grant OF 4 piece of property in specie is
not evidence Of Il custom as to any other
similar property not included within that
grant, and therefore the proposition sub
mitted Is irrele want, iucOm Dete1t and i'm
material. y custom cannot be proven
where there Is constitutional and
statutory law upon the subject. and when
The article of admission OF California to
the Union by express provision excludes
the land carried by the proposition from
So e"
Brown answered: eve do not offer this
for the purpose of showing a custom, but
for the purpose of showing what the pub
lie policy was as adopted by California,
and that policy whatever it was. as adopted
by the State, is beyond the power of any
court or Legislature to annul so far as
title is concerned" Brown submitted the
act providing for The sale of the States
interest in the property within the water
line front of this city and acts for the sa 10
of other similar property throughout the
State.
Hart objected to the admission of each
act, and the commissioner withheld his
decision.