The morning call., 1894-12-23
WHO MADE The HARBoRp

An attorney of the Southern Pacific
Company, In his argument on the water
front case before the Supreme Court,
stated substantially that the railroad CON-
pany had created the harbor out of the
estuary in front Of Oakland. That is not
only not true but it lacks the color of
truth. That estuary has been converted
into a harbor by the Federal Government.
1t appropriated past and prospective
sums up to millions. The seawall and the
dredging has all been done by the Federal
Government Most of this was done while
the waterfront company claimed nearly
the entire shore line on both sides of the
estuary and extended it's claim to half a
mile or more out in the bay beyond the
estuary. 1t drove a row of piles in deep
water to define its extreme limits and to
warn every body from making any indie
pendent improvements inside of these
limits.
Before the Central and Southern Pacific
companies had put in an appearance ferry
boats were running, wharf had been ex-
tended into the bay, the franchise for
which was transferred to the Central Pa
cific. a railroad had also been extended
from this wharf to Haywards. The South
ern Pacific, succeeding to the privileges of
the Central, has done little or nothing to
improve the harbor OF Oakland. For
years it claimed nearly exclusive control
of it. 1t closed up streets leading to the
water front. in one instance placing its
ticket office in the middle of the street to
prevent any other access to the water line
that its own. 1t erected barricade across
another street to cut off public access to
the haTbOr. II refused TO allow other
streets to be opened across what it claimed
as its territory. In short the policy from
first to last has been as nearly as possible
one of exclusive control Of that waterway.
While the claim was made and enforced
as far as possible, the claimants did moth
ing to improve the harbor. They dredged
no ship channels. built no seawalls and
did nothing more than to deepen the water
in one or TWO slips for the use of their
ferry-boats. The Federal Government went
on making annual appropriations. while
the waterfront company claimed the bene-
fit. If its claim to the water front could
be substantiated, then it could be shown
that the Federal Government had en-
HANGED the value of that property by its
harbor impro vements many millions of
dollars.
If there had been no Central Pacific
Company and no waterfront company. the
estuary would have been there, the harbor
would have been improved as an addition
TO the shipping facilities of San Francisco.
The only additional importance given To
it by the company is that its ferry-boats 90
at all stages of the tide through the chan.
mel that the Government has dredged. TT
il was not for the small frontage owned by
the city, not a single vessel could load or
discharge pound of freight on that water
front without the permission of the rail-
road company. That is directly the oppo.
site of the case made by The attorney for
this corporation. If the claim is not quite
as offensively asserted now, that is only a
matter of policy.
Ii the railroad company could make good
its claim now before the Supreme Court
it would be finally asserted. just about as
their attorney has defined it: I'VE created
the harbor and we will control it. Own
ing the frontage on either side, for all
practical purposes we own the harbor.
We will dictate the terms on which the
shore line can be used. as we did 10
former days, when privileges were granted
defining certain uses and forbidding