The morning call., 1894-12-21
ARE TALKING ON.
Lawyers For and Against
Oakland.
SENATOR STEWARDS IDEA.
What the Railroad Has Done for
the City.
QUOTING THE CHICAGO CASE.
1t Is Claimed That the Decision
Sustains the Title of Carpen-
tiers Grant.
SENATOR STEWARDS IDEA
QUOTING THE CHICAGO CAST

| concluded his argument to-day in the Su-
preme Court in the Oakland waterfront
case. He set forth the changes wrought
on the Oakland side Of San Francisco Bay
| by the location there of a railway ter
minus, making that city great CONNER
cial center. He said this had cost the
railway company a vast sum, and that
| but for these outlays the Government
would never have undertaken the recon-
| strucion of the harbor. The harbOr is
| purely an artificial one He said the
grant in question was not under navi-
gable waters but insisted of land covered
| by water at high tide and bare at low
tide and OF land covered by shallow
water without sufficient depth for naviga-
tion. The grant was no portion of the ex-
isting harbor, but of lands which could
be reclaimed by filling in and other sub
merged lands where the water could only
be made DavigabIe by excavation. For
more than generation the State had COL
lected taxes on the granted property and
now claimed never to have had the power
| to grant. Stewart then explained the
recognized title of all the States bordering
| on tide-water TO lands lying between high
and low water marks and to submerged
| lands out Of the line of navigable waters.
These lands had been granted to indi-
viduals, sometimes by recognizing the
riparian rights of the owner of the upland
| and sometimes. as in this case, by special
granting acts. Had California recognized
| riparian rights Inc owners of the Peralta
grant, on which Oakland stands, would
have owned the water front Of Oakland
and Alameda. and miles more besides.
Stewart then proceeded to discuss the
opinion of the Supreme Court in the
| Chicago lake front case, all of which he
fully sustained. He asserted that if the
principles laid down in that case were
adhered to In the present one the grant
| which he was defending must be held
| valid. He said under the decision in the
| Chicago case, the State could not grant the
bed of the harbor. but it might grant the
tide and submerged land bordering on the
harbSr aud such parcels of land under
nayigabie waters as might be necessary
for wharves and other structures for the
Improvement of navigation. Stewart was
followed by Ashton.
Mr.. Ashton traced the proceedings of
the California Legislature and Oakland
authorities and the various agreements
and c,nveyances through which the
Southern Pacific derived the title. He also
recited the grants made by the State to the
towns of Martinez and Benicia of their
water fronts. and stated that the State had,
without challenge, granted 251S acres of
| land in San Francisco under the waters of
the bay.
Replying TO the statement by Attorney
General Hart, that Carpenter had only
thrty-seven-year lease instead of an alb
soute graut, he explained that the thirty
| seven year Limitation was upon the sole
| right to construct and maintain wharves,
and the absolute grant of submerged lands
| was con tanned in a distinct and separate
| section. he claimed that the Legislature,
by the act of 1861. had confirmed all of the
proceedings under which the railroad COM
pauy claimed its title.
Mr.. Miller of Chicago followed. He WAS
in charge of the Chicago lake-front case
on behalf of that city. and appeared in
support Of the position taken in that case.
| He said California had never made grant
10 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
Carpenter and the vast extent of the
grant. He said there were two kinds of
ownership by State-the ownership of
sovereign, 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 legis-
lative power could not so ALLEVIATE the
property held by the State in trust for the
people as to prevent subsequent legislative
reversion. He said the limitation upon
legislative power over the great subjects
involving sovereignty was for the public
good, and that when the Legislature
of State attempted to permanently
transfer the objects of Its proper care 10
Individuals. a subsequent Legislature could
set aside such attempts. He contended,
furthermore, that the act admitting Cali
MIA into the Union contained a clause
which protected the people against all
invasion of the enjoyment of the navgable
waters in the State.
! He was followed by Mr.. Davis OF Oak
land, whose manner was at times very
animated and whose language was some
| times more denuneiatorv than is usually
| ueaTu III tHe OupIolue OUuTts a6 ClilIDeQ
that the act of 1854, incorporating the city
of Oakland. repealed the grant to Carpen-
tier by repeating the act incorporating the
| town of Oakland iu 1852. he read from
conveyances by the Waterfront Company
to individuals TO show that the lands
claimed under the said grants had been
conveyed upon the express condition that
they should not be used for wharf pur-
poses, of which 1t wanted a monopoly. He
said the railroad company claimed the
right to go out in to the bay to twenty-four
| feet Of water at low tide. He declared
that the estuary of San Antonio Greek,
which is within the grant claimed. had al
WAYS been Davigable by steamers.
| MIR. Davis was especially severe on Car
pentier, to whom Oakland sold its original
! grant He said that at that time Oakland
contained but fifty-five inhabitants; that
only fifty-two of them participated In an
| election of five Trustees: that Car