The herald., 1894-12-22
OAKLAND's WATER FRONT CASE.
Senator Stewart Makes Argument for
tho Railroad.

Senator Stewart Nnkes Argument Tor
tho Railroad.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 Senator Stew.
art concluded the argument today in the
supreme court in the Oakland water
front case. He set forth the charges
wrought on the o kland side of San
Francisco bay by the loration there OF
the railway terminus. making that city
a great commercial center. He said
this had cost the railway company g
vast sum, and that but for these out
lays the government would never I'M
dertake reconstruction OF the harGor.
The harhor is purely an artificial one.
He eaid the grant In question ls not un
der navigable waters, but cnnsisted OF
land covered by water ct high tide.
and bare at low tide, and of land COY.
cred by shallow water without euffic icient
depth for navigation. The grant was DO
portion OF the existing harbar, bu' OF
lands which could be reclaimed by fill
ing in and other submerged lands where
water could only be made nsvigabe by
excavation. For more than a genera
tion the state has collected taxes on
granted property and now claims never
to have had the power to grant. Stew
art then explained the recognized title
OF all the states bordering on the tide
water to lands lying between high and
low water marks and to submerged
lands out of the line of navigab BILE waters.
These landB have been granted to indi-
viduals. sometimes by recognizing ripa-
rian rights OF owners OF upland, and
sometimes, as in this case, by special
granting acts.
Attorney Ashton followed Stewart.
He traced the proceedings of the Cali
fornia Legislature and Oak land authors
ties and the various agreements through
which the Southern Pacific derived the
title. He also cited the grants made by
the state to the towna of Martinez and
Benicia OF their water and stated that
this state had without challenge granted
25lS acres of land in San Francisco un.
der the waters of the bay. Replying to
the statement by Attorney-Gsneral
Hart that Carpenter had only 37-ysar
lease, instead of an absolute grant, he
explained that the 37-year limitation was
up on the sole right to construct and
maintain wharves and the absolute
grant of submerged lands was contained
in a distinct and separate section. He
claimed that the Legislature by the act
of 1851 had confirmed all of the pro-
ceedings under which the railroad COM
pany claimed its title. Mr.. Miller, of
Chicsgo, followed. He was in charge OF
the Chicago lake front case on behalf of
thst city and appeared in support OF the
position taken on that case. He said
California had never made erant to
Oakland of land under navigable waters.
He declared that were this otherwise,
the ordinance of Oakland conveying the
grant to Carpenter was unreasonable
and void for that reason. To support this
proposition he showed the small
amount Of services rendered by Carpen-
tier and the vast extent OF the grant.
He said there we're two kinds of owner-
ship by a state; the ownership of q SOW
ereign, which could only be exercised
for the benefit of the people of his own
time and their posterity; the other.
such ownership as individuals have in
lands or other property. He contended
that the exercise Of legislative power
could not SO ALLEVIATE the property as to
prevent subsequent Legislative res.
ervatiOn. He said the limit
upon legislative power over the great
subjects involving sovereignty was the
public good, and that when the legisla-
ture of state attEnpted 10 permanently
transfer the objeSs of it's proper care to
individuals, subsequent Legislature
could set aside such attempts.
He was followed by Mr.. Davis OF Oak
land, whose manner was at times very
animated and whose language was at
times more denunciatory than is usually
heard in the supreme court.
He had not concluded his argument
when the court adjourned.