The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-23
An Important Decision Of In
terest to Water Front
Trafhckers.
NO EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES.
The Pacific Coast Steamship Company
Cannot Keep Mortons Delivery of
Its WharveS.

The demurrer OF Cne ueiehuon'o IL '1e
case of the Morton Special Delivery Com
| PAW against the Pacific Coast Steamship
Com pany has been overruleo, ana 'ne
ruling is made in such shape that IL
practically decides the case as 1ar as tne
| Superior Court is concerned.
| The Pacific Coast Steamship company
| had granted to the Pacific transfer COM
pany the exclusive privilege OF soilcl'ine
| trade upon its steamers and upon the
| piers which it rents from the Haroor
Commission. The Morton Special De-
livery Company attempted one day IN
| October to send agents to sonclt
business from the passengers OF the
steamer Walla Walla, which had inst
| come in, but these agents were electeo
| from the wharves by the employees OF the
steamship company, and this suit was
| brought to enioin them from molestlng
| the employees of the delivery company.
| The defendant demurred to the COM
plant for Injunction and this demurrer
| has been overruled.
The plaintiff alleged that the transfer
| business is requisite for the convenience or
| the travelling public; that 1T IS large
and lucrative business, and that there Is
| great deal of capital invested In 1t. 10
permit only single transfer company,
| therefore, to ply its trade upon the pubic
wharves only compels people to pay
price which, being unaffected by compe-
tition, is necessarily higher than IL
should be.
In answer the defendant alleged that the
protection of the single company In the
exclusive transaction of the steamer busl.
ness was necessary to prevent loss 10 tnat
company, and also to insure safe, speedy
and convenient landing of passengers and
baggage.
In rendering its opinion the court said:
From the position apparently taken by de.
thereof, it is plain that defendant claims aoso.
lutte proprietorship in piers 3 ana II, not
indeed as if it owned the fee and was In pos
session hereunder, but as tenant OF the
State by virtue of lease or assignment Ut ere.
from, by which it is given the exclusive rlgnt
to use all of said piers; so that during tne me
OF said lease the entire control of said piers u
vested in defendant.
| To this contention the opinion answers
| that the Harbor Commission, from which
any rights at all in the matter are derived,
cannot grant to any party the exclusive
control of the City's wharves and docks.
| Tn, title which the State holds to such
lands is different in character from the
title of the State to lands intended for
| sale; it is a title held in trust for the
people of the State that they may enjoy
the navigation of the waters and carry on
commerce over them free from obstruction
vi lllGCl Oy plINdlS pdItlcS, duQ IL
is not within the legislative power of the
State to abdicate this trust by a grant
whereby it surrenders the property and
general control of the lands of an entire
harbor. The State gives the Harbor Com.
mission merely the power to set aside suit
able wharves for the exclusive use of GER
| tain vessels, but the word exclusive in that
| sense does not mean absolute control of
| the property leased.
| The defendant cannot make rnles and
regulations governing the management of
these piers, for such power is vested by
law in the Commissioners only, and they
| cannot delegate that power to the defend
ant. The Harbor Commissioners had
made no rule excluding the plaintiff from
the piers in question, but even had they
| done so there is no warrant for the making
of such a regulation by the defendant.
Defendant cannot grant exclusive privi-
| Ieges for the carrying on of business upon
property held in trust by the State for the
| people.
If the Pacific Coast Steamship Company
can grant exclusive privileges to one COM
pany and keep all others off the pier, so
could it admit one man to say good-by to
| departing friend and deny that right to
| another 1t would allow of a monopoly Of
| the waterfront carrying and bartering
business, and of the hotel and lodging
house custom. The court therefore con.
siders it sound discretion to overrule the
| demurrer. Ten days are given the defend.
| ant to answer, if he so desires.