The morning call., 1894-10-16

that of the Pacific Gas Improvement Com
Supervisors. Contractors Warren &
Malley and others. An Injunction was
prayed for to restrain the defendants from
carrying on the work of filling in the basin
on the line of Lewis street across the inlet
extending from the Presidio reservation
to the Black Point grounds. distance Of
nearly mile.
Some time ago ex-senator James G.
Fair, who owns some forty of the sub
merged blocks. started in TO fill in and re-
claim the tide lands. The work was car
ried on until a temporary injunction was
granted. The history of these tide lands
is an interesting one.
Prior To 1888 the Central Gas Com pany
was In posse sion of the property known
as block 336. That company leased the
same to The Unied Gas Improvement
COMPANY nf Pennsylvania. and in 1885
the latter leased the ground to the plain
tiff. The land to the south of this block.
where the company's gas works are To-
Gated. is the submerged land. ana was
formerly owned by the State.
The gas company has a landing place
where they get in supplies of coal and
other material which is used in the manu-
facture of gas. and il IS the prospect If
losing this landing place when the sub
merged lots are filled in that has caused
the gas company TO take their grievance
into court.
Board of Supervisors under the act "pro-
viding for streets, lanes. etc." passed the
resolution tor the int rovement of Lewis
street, and they eventually awarded the
contract to Warren & Malley. The dis
trct comprised n the resolution COM
prises the whole OF the basin between the
Government reservation and a portion OF
the haV Rnual TN 1(l0 Tho
cost Of the WORK was approximatad at
S300,0U0. The expense was 10 fail upon
the property-Owners on either side of the
street.
In the complaint filed in the court the
gas company maintains that the city has
no jurisdiction over the land in ques-
ton and consequently cannot order any
work done in the way of improvements
Tie company valued their plant at over
$4,000 and The rlg1t of access by water at
$4,000.
1t was set forth that in 1854 the Legisla-
ture authorized the sale To the North San
francisco Homestead and Railway As
ISOLATION of certain OverflOwed lands pro-
vIded that the Commissioners of Swamp
and Overlooked Lands should appraise
certain lands covered by the waters of the
bay extending to a depth not exceeding
six feet at the lowest stage of the tide,
provided that it does not interfere with
that they do not use any lands
which interfere with the navigation of
the bay" A patent was issued under
these conditions, and Fair aud others sue.
ceeded TO the nterest of the association.
The validity of this act is assailed on ihe
ground that the greater part of the basin
is covered by water over feet in depth.
1t is further claimed that when California
was ceded to the United States it was stip-
ulated In the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
that the navigation Of the bay should not
be interfereG with. Because of thi-, the
act OF 1864. 1t was claimed, is in conirayen-
tion nf the act "f Congress admitting the
State into The Union. and in violation of the
trust upon which the Stale held the lands
overed by navigable waters.
In addition the plaintiff also called at
tention 70 the fact that in 1868 the Legis-
lature passed law 10 survey and dispos Sc
OF certain salt, marsh and tide lands be-
longing to the State, a3d Board OF Tide
Land Commissioners was appointed TO
lake possession of all such lands under
water o point that might be est blished
as the water front and have the same sur
veyed t, oirt not bevond a depth of
tweo y-foGr feet of water. The commits
sioners, together with the Governor.
Mayor and president of the Chamber Of
Commerce, were to meet and by two
third vote establish the water front line
where not esta blished by the act of 1851.
They did so. bDt their acts were declared as
void by the plain iff for the same reasons
that the sale act Of 1864 was called invalid.
Under the new constitution the plain
tiff maintained that all tide lands within
two miles of any incorporated city or town
fronting on any waters used for navigation
should be withheld from grant or sale to
private parties or corporations. After
attempting TO show that the city has no
jnrisdiction over lands which belong TO the
State property. the plaintiff asked for a
per, etual injunction against The defend
anis.
Judge McKanna did not hesitate 10 de-
eide adversely to the defendant in the
matter of Jurisdiction. As regards the
nther issues involved. he went into det ails
at length, and did not hesitate to say that
when the State owned this land it was not
disputed that it bad right to do as il
pleased with 1t. Therefore those who
succeeded the State in possession had the
same privilege. For this reason the citv
had right to contract for the filing in of
the basin. In conclusion Judge McKenna
said:
passing the point that titles or rights
acquired could not be revoked even by an