The San Francisco call., 1896-04-09

present employed when its coast division
is completed so as to form new through
line to New Orleans, has developed some
exceedingly interesting matters.
1t has again brought TO notice the al
most forgotten suit of the people of the
State OF California against the Central
Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads, to
forfeit sixty acres of land on Mission Bay,
near China Basin, which suit had to be
temporarily abandoned owing to the mys-
terious disappearance of the papers from
the files Of the County Clerks office
These papers have now eappeared and
precautions have been taken that will
effectually prevent a similar contretemps.
Further than this the proceedings to have
this valuable property declared forfeited
TO the State will shortly be taken up again
and prosecuted with vigor.
This track was granted together with a
200foot right of way from it to the San
Mateo County line. This right of way
was declared forfeited in 1876 by Governor
Pacheco, while he at the same time issued
patents TO the companies for the sixty
acres for terminal purposes.
Since that time the Southern Pacific
Company has in desultory sort of wav
been endeavoring to secure a right of way
by purchase. and that task Is now very
near completion, but it is likely, from the
present outlook, to be now possessed of a
right of way TO nowhere, so far as suitable
terminal property is concerned.
The status of this Mission Bay property,
which is now estimated to be worth not
less than $30O0,000, is clearly shown in the
following open letter of John T. DOYLE,
published in the Real Estate Circular
some months ago:
Your inquiry TO the sixty acres in Mission
Bay granted 10 theCentral Pacific and Southern
Pacific railroad companies in 1868, and the
suit brought by the State in relation thereto
may be briefly answered.
The land was granted by an act. passed
March 30, 1S6S, for terminal purposes only,
and on condition that the com panies should
make their terminus thereon, and expend
100000 in improving the property within
thirty months, failing which the grant wa:
20 be void. The time for compliance was after
wards extended, but expired many years since
BY the same act strip OF land some 200 fee
VIDE was granted TO them over the tide lands
claimed by the State an approach 10 thos,
terminal grounds on the south
Assuming that the companies did spent
the required amount in Improvements it il
notorious that they never made their terminu
there nor built the contemplated road OF ap
proach.
In the summer OF 1875 they applied I,
Governor Pacheco for patents for the termina
grounds and the designated right OF way, anC
a notice was published inviting objectors t
show cause, il they desired to, why thes
patents should not issue. ! these notice
and wrote to the Governor requesting TO b
heard in opposition 10 issuing the patents.
received from his secretary reply promisin,
10 fix time thereafter for the hearing ant
apprise me of ii.
wrote and printed two letters addressed t.
the Governor, in July, 1879. pointing out som
OF the reasons why the companies were not en-
titled to the patents asked for. and awaited hi
promised notification of the date of the pro
posed hearing, for which these letters were N,
brief. The notice never came. l pres ume tn,
Governor forgot his promise to me, as, at tn
election of 1878, he was chosen a member o
Congress and must have had many things t.
think OF about that time.
On the 18th of September, just after tn
election, he issued to the railroad companies
patent Tor the sixty acres, but denied the
application for that for right of way ! nere
could see how to reconcile the granting of III.
one with the denial CT the other, but at 1eas
it showed the Governments impartialisy, a
the judge in early days served the slave-h,