The San Francisco call., 1895-12-19
CHANNEL STREET WHARVES
The State Sues to Have En-.
croachments Declared
Illegal.
PUBLIC PROPERTY USURPED.
Lumber Companies and the Pacific I'm.
provement Company Made De.
PENDANTS in the Suit.
PUBLIC PROPERTY UsURPED.

TREY L. Ford, attorney for the Harbor
Commissioners, brought suit in the
Superior Court yesterday on behalf of the
people against the Pacific Improvement
Company. the E. K. Woods Lumber Com
pany, the Albion Lumber Company and
the Union Lum Der Company.
The purpose of the suit is to compel the
defendants to remove wharves recently
built on the south side of Channel street,
between Fifth and Sixth beyond the
limits allowed by law.
1t was recently brought to the attention
of the Harbor Commission that Channel
street, between Fifth and Sixth had
been encroached upon by the defend
ants, thus limiting the free waterway con-
siderably. In other words it was claimed
that the defendants had built wharves up
on State property. Mr.. Ford was directed
by the board to investigate the facts of
the case, which he set forth as follows:
Pursuant to Instructions have investigated
the law and the facts relating to the jurisdic-
ton of the board in and over Channel street,
between Fifth and Sixth, in this City. Accord
ing to the best Information have been able to
obtain. Channel street, between Fifth and
Sixth is two hundred feet in width and
controlof the Board ofIState Harbor. Commits
sioners.
On the north side of Channel street, between
Fifth and Sixth are several wharves extend
ing within the 2OO-foot limit. The land on
this side of the street is owned by numerous
private persons.
On the south side of Channel street the land
from Fifth to Sixth is owned by the Pacific I'm
proyement Company and wharves have
olrpa1 Or n
structon by certain lumber companies, along
the entire distance from Fifth to Sixth streets,
and such wharves extend within the 2oO-foot
limit of Channel street as above described.
The decisions OF the courts have not been
uniform in relation to the jurisdiction of the
board in and over Channel street, and there is
also an apparant conflict IN the statutes re-
lating thereto.
am of the opinion, however, that the juris-
, diction of the board is complete in and over
the premises described. If it be the desire OF
the board to have the matter judicially de-
termined l can institute the necessary legal
proceedings to secure that result.
This review of the situation covered the
ground thoroughly, and Mr.. Ford re-
ceived instructions to begin the legal con-
test, which he did yesterday.
The conflict in the statutes referred to in
his opinion is the only legal point in
volved. The code contains a clause which
very definitely places u limit on the State 8
jurisdiction over Channel street at Fifth
street crossing. Later on, however, law
was enacted giving the State control over
Channel street with other waterways
along the harbor front of San Francisco
"as far as the tidewaters ebb and fow."
The tide ebbs and flows beyond Fifth
street, but vet there are two sections of the
code clearly in conflict with each other.
Judge He bbard decided case similar to
the present one in favor of the Harbor
ommission, in which he held that the
later clause should be accepted as the
sp irit of the law.