The morning call., 1895-01-07
st. Frances de Sales Entered by
Thieves.
DIR. RANKEN is SERIOUSLY HURT
Funerals of the Victims of the Rail-
road Disaster i'm the AitamOnt
Tunnel.

OF LDe UDlt6u ObaGes az w doHIustou 1907
month and argued Oakland's right in the
matter of the water front. was seen at mis-
residence last evening and asked to give
THE CALLS readers his opinion on that
great question. lie was greatly pleased
with the result of his trip and the cour-
tesy shown him by the court. He was
granted seven concessions out OF the
usual rules. He was allowed to file briefs
for the city and to argue. The length OF
time for arguments was extended beyond
the time limit and then extended again.
and finally he was permitted to have his
oral arguments transcribed and submitted
as printed argument Mr.. Davis said:
Toward the latter portion of the argu-
ment and at the close several members OF
the court asked counsel If we thought the
city of Oakland was not an indispensable
party to the final determination of the
waterfront question? 1t must be con-
stantly borne in MUD that the city Of
Oakland is not a party to this suit, but
participates In 1t solely as am Gus cur &C.
The above question as TO the necessity Of
Oakland being a party and not merely
friend of the court was brought out by the
many facts disclosed in the evidence and
records of the case showing that the State
had already coded this water front to
the town and city and that under the for
mer and present charter Oakland has
ample power to administer the property
for public benefit ana carry out the ageE-
cies thus created by the State. These
questions therefore necessarily suggest
this, "What has the State to do with all of
this ?" AS she has already ceded the prop
erty to Oakland as her trustee mas she re-
voked the cession or grant? Otherwise
YOU see Oakland would not be an indie
spensable party. Then. too, several of the
Justices asked Attorney-Ceneral Hart
more than once whether there was any
statute authorizing or directing him to
bring this suit, the point seemingly sug-
costing itself 20 the Court that IL the Leg
isIature had coded the water front
TO the town or city of Oakland an
Attorney General could not repeal
the law or grant by voluntarily institCting
suit; that the repeating or revoklng
power rests In the Legislature and not in
the Acknowledgement. or course, nothing
connected like this was said, but questions
put point to the ends and lines of thought
have indicated.
THE immediate question therefore in
the courts mind ran n OF first TO the merits
of the case, but first of all to the Drelim-
mary question, Are all OF the necessary
PARTIES, the real parties Interested. now be-
fore the court.
"There is no doubt that the court will
solve this question OF parties before taking
ND the questions of details involved in the
history of the OakIan Waterfront Com
pany. The foregoing is OF vital Importance
in the aspect of this case for the following
reason: This case is between only the
State and the Southern Pacific of Ken
lucky. There are no other parties. Being
between State and foreign corporation
it falls within the original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court under the Federal con-
stitution. In Its original jurisdiction that
court can adjudge controversies between
a State and another State. or between a
State and nonresident corporation, the
latter is this case as matter OF
original Jurisdiction. But now suppose
The city of Oakland is introduced
as party. She is a resident of the same
State as plain tiff, and the Supreme Court
has no original jurisdiction where a city is
a party and resident of the same State is
another party. Likewise If you make the
city party in It's relations to the Southern
Pacific of Kentucky you would now have
a corporation of Kentucky and corpora
ton of California face 10 face, but the
Supreme Court has no original Jurlsdlc-
tion between such corporations. 1t thus
appears that il the court considers Oak
land an indi spensable party II sees at the
same moment that in its original JGrsdc-
ton IL could not proceed to adjudge either
OF INC COulTOFeISdlieS dIOuR tuo iluo 10
tween the State and city nor along the
line between the city aud the Southern
Pacific of Kentucky.
"1hus you will observe that the Ques-
ton of the city being a necessary party
presents necessarily the greater question
of whether the Supreme Court can adJudge
in this parti ular case brought by AttOr-
ney-General Hart.
I'm any of these controversies between
the State and city or between the city and
any private claimant, whether Southern
Pacific OF Kentucky or Waterfront Com
pany of Oakland. if the court should find
in the line of the above suggestions, 1t
might very easily reach the conclusion
that 1t would not pass at all upon this
piecemeal question Of what are the super
visorial powers of the State with reference
to the Southern Pacific Company, its piers,
depots and constructions in the estuary
ana bay. The court might hold that, mas
much as the city is an iDdispsnsa BILE party.
we will require the proceedings to come
before it In another form, with the city
and all other parties properly represented
and pass upon all OF their rights in one
hearing and one decision.
SHOULD this be obtained the present suit
brought by the Attorney-General might 60
out of court without any ruling on the
merits of the controversy. That would
mean another suit to be brought which
WOulQ nave 10 COME D6tOT6 Tue DupT6m6
Court of the United States in its appellate
jurisdiction in which it has clear and
ample jurisdiction to hear all arties as
parties and adjudge its respective rights.
Il have already said enough to show that
| consider the uppermost question at pres
est, the question whether the State can
stay 10 court and obtain any adjudication
of this suit. Going to the real merits of
the great question involved, of course If
the State goes out. fails to maintain its
suit on its merits. that Is in effect victory
for the city of Oakland. for 1t virtually in-
wolves The idea that the cession on grant
by the State 10 the town in 1852 gave
to the town and city, as the States
agency, the control and administering OF
the water front, aud that therefore the CT Y
was an INDISPENSABLE party as holder and
executor of the trust. All of these aues-
tous are raised by the evidence already
taken, the facts already In evidence and
discussed in the arguments and which led
the Justices to ask the questions which
suggested the foregoing"
Sherman More Than Ready.
Edwin A. Sherman Jr.. the president of
the Christian End-avor UniGn of Alameda
County, who Is threatened with arrest for
libel by the Chief OF Police of Oakland
was seen yesterday aud talked of the
trouble between himself and the chief.