The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-12-20
FOR HER LIFE.
Oakland's Future in
the Balance.
MR.HART'S ARGUMENT
On the Recovery of the
Water Front.
BRIEF OF LAWYER DAVIS.
Talk Caused Among Attorneys
by It's Terms.
RAILROADS WATCH THE CASE.
Strangely Enough Both Sides Are
Willing to Abide by the Chi-
cago Decision.

WASHINGTON, Dec. sI9-ODe Of the most
important cases of the year was taken up
in the United States Supreme Court to-
DAY. 1t involves the validity OF the title
of the Southern Pacific Company to the
water front in Oakland. Cal. The grant
was originally made in 1862 to the town of
Oakland, then a mere hamlet of a large
tract of land extending from high water
mark to the ship channel, to enable the
town (Which was incorporated in the same
acD to create a harbor and construct
wharves. This grant was conveyed to
Horace W. Carpenter by the Trustees of
the town on his agreement to perform
certain conditions required of the town
by the granting act of the Legislature.
Controversies arose between Carpenter
and the authorities of Oakland after its
incorporation as a city In 1864. The
claims were all adjusted in 1868 under an
authority of the Legislature conferred on
the City Council and Mayor for the pur-
pose. From CARPENTER the title now at
tackled by the State of California was
transferred by the railroad company. The
present SUIT is brought to quiet title.
The State of California is represented
by Attorney-General Hart of that State.
and with him are assistant counsel
for the city of Oakland, ana also
John S. Miller of Chicago, who was
counsel for the city in the famous
lake front case, in which he took from
the Illinois Central its supposed right to
submerged landskcoustitutlng the water
front OF Chicago in Lake Michigan. On
the side of the railroad were William
Stewart, Senator of Nevada. j. Hubley
Ashton OF Washing, j. K. Cowan and
Hugh l.. Bond Jr. of Baltimore and Har-
vey ID. Brown of San Francisco.
There was large crowd in the Supreme
Court room TODAY to hear the case. A
considerable number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress were present
at odd times, as well as prominent mem
bers of the Washington bar. Among
others noticed were George C. Gorham
and William 81. Ralston. The case is
conceded TO be one of the most interest
ing, as well as important. tried In the Su-
preme Court for many'years. Attorney
General Hart opened the case in an argu-
ment of one hour and thlrry-fiye min
utes, and was followed by Senator Stewart
for tie railroad. 1t is rrobable that the
arguments will not be finished until Fri
day.
The Justices manifested great Interest In
the case by asking Mr.. Hart questions re-
peatedly, and the Attorney General ac-
quilted himself we'll in the opinion of all
The Calif0rnians present. He covered the
fifteen points indexed in his brief and in
addition contended that the territory ont
of which California was composed was
subject to the civil law (Spanish). which
absolutely prohibited the sale of any Dor
ton of the lands below ordinary high tide.
as the same were to be retained forever
for the public use of citizens where il was
located and for all foreign nations who
might want TO use it for purposes of navi-
CATION, and that when California was ad-
mitted to the Union this property was
charged with the same trust and hence the
State could not dispose of it for any pur
pose, but the same must be retained for
the public use of American and other
citizens.
Justice White. who 10 of course familiar
with Louisiana's code, which is similar to
CaliIornia's civil law, was much interested
in this point, and when Hart showed him
California's civil statute he examined il
intently, and afterward nodded approy-
ingly as though he agreed that the Attor-
ney- General had scored a good point.
General Hart emphasized his contention
that Carpenters title was no more than a
lease. to run thlrty-seven years and which
expired in 1889.
Mr.. Hart believes that the case will
hinge on this point. and he is yery con-
fident that this will win for California. az
never felt as sure Of winning a case as
am Of this one." said he to THE CALL
CORES rondent tonight. land | am natur-
ally we'll pleased that my friends speak 80
we'll of my argument to-day. At its close
1 was congratulated by Justice Field"
Senator Stewards argument was not
flushed, but the principal new point he
made was that the Southern Pacific wa,
induced to go to Oakland because of th,
waterfront consideration.
Congressman Cowan's brief for the rail-
road points out the insign nificance of Oak.
land when this grant or lease was made
1t is understood that Attorney Davis
brief for Oakland came near being at
lacked in court by the railroads ATTORNEYS.
who claimed that it was libelous and
scandalous. 1t is said that many railroads
are watching this case intently. as thew
have water fronts and lands similarly in
voved at New York. Brooklyn, JERSEY
City. New Orleans and elsewhere. Con-
gressman Cowan, who represents the
Baltimore and Ohio Road, has interest.
involved in this way.
"The Baltimore and Ohio road ia not re-
sponsible for my appearance In this case"
said he to THE CALL correspondent to.
night. II was employed by Mr.. Hunt
ington."
The most interesting feature of the case
is the professed willingness of both sides
TO be governed by the law in the Chicago
lake-front case. which both assert to be
directly in their favor. The case will