The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-26

w Carpenter, whose successful schemes
| in this matter are little less than marvel
Gus as viewed from the standpoint OF to-
day. The town of Oakland was lncorpor-
ated May 4, 1851. On the 10th the first
| election was held and Carpenter was
elected one of the five Councilman. He
was candidate only to keep out some one
| else, for he did not intend to quallfy. lie
| had plan to secure by ordinance from the
| Council the title to the water front between
| high and low tide, and he knew that the
Council could not grant 1t to one or It's own
members. He secured it. The city was
organized in 81 and Carpenter was
elected Mayor. The Council passed an
ordinance repudiating his title. He vetoed
the ordinance. The Council passed the
ordinance over his head. The city brought
suit, also, in the courts to set aside his
title and got Judgment. AS Mayor OF the
| city he went into court and consented TO
set aside the Judgment and allow Judgment
instead to be entered against the city.
"When the railroad came along it bought
Carpenters title. That title claimed to
extend from ordinary high tide and ran
round on the Alameda side of the estuary,
| as the boundary was fixed in the act Great
| ing Oakland in 1852. Not satisfied with
| that, the railroad went to Sacramento and
had the language changed to read to the
line of highest tide. That was easy, for
no one noticed the change or was supposed
to notice it. This let them in to all the
marsh land in front of Alameda, and forms
the line extending southwesterly to the
| ship-channel, according to the act of 1862.
'The fourteen deviations of title came
| from all sorts of by-play carried through
for this single purpose, such as defaulting
| on their taxes and then itself buying the
| land in under a tax sale, as though any
one could strengthen their own title in that
way. Seven attempts were made in leg
4 1cIa ft0 utclo
| ture to confirm the acts of the Council of
Oakland, not mentioning the Carpenter
| transfer and then getting the Council itself
| to confirm them.
''As another means they went into court
| repeatedly with the city, getting the city
! In each instance to confess Judgment.
AS an instance of the outrageous char
acter of some of these transactions take the
| famous compromise of 1868. The water
| front was to be divided up, Stanford to
take 40 per cent, Carpenter so per cent
and FELTON, 10 per cent. The whole thing
Mayor (Merrltt) by which all suits were to
be dismissed; these individuals were to
have the whole sweep of the water front
as the Oakland Waterfront Company and
the city to be coded on little block at the
foot of Franklin street. The ordinance was
introduced already prepared at special
meeting held on the night of April 1.-THE
most famous of Oakland s All Fools days
read three times and passed under sus-
lipended rules, and the Council adjourned
to meet at 8 o'clock the next morning.
Mayor Merritt was in waiting to sign the
bill. AT the next mornings meeting the
Council approved the minutes of the pre-
ceding meeting and added to the grant the
words all franchises and rights that went
with the Carpenter title. Not satisfied
with this they asked Mayor Merritt, the in
corporator of the waterfront company, to
act as director, which he kindly consented
to do.
can exactly similar manipulation of the
City Council was practiced again in 1882,
when under suspended rules resolution
was passed dismissing all the litigation,
four suits which were well under way, TO
secure for the city its own.
"The present litigation was begun in
1898, and these cases were all being tried
to finish. Two cases are before Judge
Mckenna in the United States Circuit
Court in San Francisco. They are for two
small pieces of land, one at the foot of
Broadway and one near Peralta street.
| The third case is brought by the State
against some seventy defendants, in which
the demurrer of the city is sustained and
| judgment entered against the State, she
having coded the land to the city. That
case is in the Supreme Court of California,
and will be heard in July in bank on ap-
peal by the State.
lie lOuTUn case Is the state against the
Southern Pacific Company of Kentucky, a
nonresident. This case is before the Su-
preme Court OF the United States. The
| contention here is for the seven pieces &C.
cupied by the Southern Pacific.
LASTLY, there is the suit of Oakland VS..
the Oakland Waterfront Company for the
| whole of the water 'front.' This has been
on trial for six months before Judge Ogden
in the Superior Court in this city. All the
| evidence is in and the argument has been
| on for two weeks and will be concluded
and submitted this week. This case chal-
lenges the whole title TO the whole 'front.'
a title that they have been building up for
| forty-two years-goeS into the whole ques-
ton and is certain to be decided and upon
its merits.
"In this litigation the city of Oakland
has the State Supreme Court decisions in
the early Carpenter case, which decided
the title to be void and worthless and
which has never been overturned; also
the decision of The Supreme Court of the
United States in the Chicago lake-front
case, which held that grant of q square
mile of water front was void, being against
public policy. Here there are private
claimants to twelve square miles, running
to thirty feet of deep water and under
| lying and surrounding the whole of the
| United States Government harbor and in
which the Federal Government has ex-
| pended in improvements S17,000,000
Oakland says that these people cannot
own the ocean now the bay has United
| States Government harbor.
But" said Mr.. Davis, by way of
| fms. ''this is aside from the question.
Suppose the court says they do. 1t does
not in the least particular affect the privi-
| lege of another railroad to break through
the claim by the right of eminent domain.
| THE CEyJED DOIITEC