The San Francisco call., 1896-12-29

for the purpose of hearing Mr.. Leavitt's
explanation of his bill and of expressing
their opinion of it.
They heard Mr.. Leavitt and they clearly
and unanimously voiced their opinion.
George W. Arper was elected to preside
and he at once asked Assembly yman
Leavitt to explain his proposed bill.
Mr., Leavitt said: II think this bill has
been about as thoroughly discussed as it
can be. | only wish to speak concerning
my motives. During the last campaign
in moving about the district | was spoken
to concerning the water front. People
would tell me | ought to do something
looking toward the Improvement of the
water front. | discussed the proposition
with many people and thought 1 would
get an open discussion on it, so l gave
notice OF my intention to introduce the
bill. The discussion has taken place and
/ agreed to leave the decision to repre-
sentative merchants OF this city. / want
to know what you desire in the matter
and will abide by your wishes"
Il. 9. Sessions said it would be very un-
wise at this time to do anything that
would hurt the interests of the city. sit
does not so much matter after all, sa i'd
provided that title to it is settled for all
time in some party. 1t will never be i'm
proved while the title is in doubt"
President Mott of the City Council
spoke for a majority of that body. He
said: 1--WE deprecate what has already
been done in this matter. 1t has cost con-
siderable money to place the city where 1t
is, but we have confidence in the attor-
neys and in ultimate victory. We feel
certain that the suit will be won, either
for the city of Oakland or for the State,
most likely for the State. What / have
heard Mr.. Britt say in reference to the
city being unable to improve it, | don't
agree with. We certainly can improve it.
Il look upon the recovery of the water
front OF Oakland as the main step to fu-
ture progress and the prosperity of this
city. AS commerce demands Will come,
so that the water front is required, and as
more needs to be improved, it can be
easily done. Take the Adams wharf for
instance. 1t is private property, but was
improved here at some expense short
time ago, and to-day is one of the busiest
portions of the city upon the water
front.
ut will only be short time-perbeps a
year-when we will have to construct
wharf at the foot of Jefferson street, and
it can be done from year to year; a new
wharf can be put up to keep pace with the
demands of the commerce of the city.
think it would be rather hard matter to
get the State to do much for us. We know
what jealousy there is in San Francisco
i'll regard to other parts of the State III a
commercial sense. They. with their great
influence, could prevent and probably
would prevent the State from doing much
of anything for Oakland in the way of
building vharves and go forth. We know
their action in the Wilmerding School.
By rights that school should have come
TO this side of the bay; but it was more
jealousy and great influence that San
Francisco had that decid ed in her favor. 1t
seems to me that the suit at this time is
within probably few weeks of decision,
and while we have every hope of winning
there is one chance possibly that we
might lose.
we are almost certain to be successful.
Now, it is an easy matter to get court to-