The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-23
ASsemblyman Leavitt AS
serts He Is Acting in
Good Faith.
The Proposed Measure Consid.
cred Unnecessary at the
Present Time.
Ii Is Believed 1t Must Pr JUDGE the
City's Standing in the U. S
Supreme Court
OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CALL, !
90S Broad wav, Dec. %. {


No matter what may be the outcome,
tits certainly unfortunate that any legis-
lation affecting the water front should he
considered just at this time. The case
has been argued and is now awaiting
decision by the Supreme Court, and any
bill introduced at the coming Legislature
must necessarily rejudice it.
Assembiyman Frank Leavitt said to-day
that it IS grave mistake 10 suppose that
tie bill is being introduced at the instiga-
A1n OF any agency of the railroad com
Mny. Oakland has become so used to
tie interference by the Legislature in
Waterfront matters, and always to her
detriment, that it is foregone conclusion
with her citizens that all such measures
must be instigated by the railroad COM
pany. II is so in this instance, and it is
peculiarly unfortunate that it should have
happened at the very outset of the public
career OF Mr.. Leavitt
Attorney W. R. Davis, who certainly
knows as much about the legal status Of
the water front as any one in the State,
and who with his colleagues has been
paid good-sized fortune to carry the
waterfront case through TO the highest
court in the land, is, no doubt, the best
authority on the subject. When he says
that the bill, although, no doubt, we'll
meant by Mr.. Leavitt, Is pernicious, the
people of this city are bound to accept his
statement, as they have employed him to
give just such advice.
Assemblyman LeaVitt said to-day: "I
had this bill printed so that just what is
happening could take place, viz, that it
might be thoroughly discussed before
being presented to the Legislature. The
bilF is my own idea, aided by suggestions
from prominent people who have been for
years fighting the railroad. | have never
spoken to any railroad attorney on the
matter nor to any one connected with the
railroad in any way.
"If this measure had been a railroad
measure l certainly should not have
placed it before the public the wav did
this discussion is exactly what l want. If
the majority OF the people of Oakland
think that the water front and harbor OF
Oakland should be in the possession. of
the State, l will introduce the bill and
work for it all l can. 1t seems to me that
if the State obtained possession of the
water front and Board OF Harbor Com
mlssiouers was appointed, such as my bill
provides for, that Oakland woulQ then go
ahead. The State would spend money for
Improvements, commerce would increase
and a move would be made in the right
AFFECTION.
For forty years the water front has
been idle and unimproved, and there is
every Indication that the present litiga-
ton may be extended and kept up for
years to come. San Franciscos water
front was likewise neglected and unim-
proved until the STATE assumed control of
it; after that money was spent, wharves
were built and the City went ahead. No
n,l Il Il
same If my bill should pass. 1t seems to
me that it would be better for the State
to handle the matter. for even if the city
wins its present suit nothing could be
done in the way of permanent improve
mems because oflack of money. My bill
is not antagonistic to the city any more
than it is to the water front. 1t simply
means the taking of the fight out of the
hands OF the municipality and placing it
in the State, which is properly able TO
control interests of such vast importance"
ANY attempt to interfere with the
waterfront legislation IS of vast import
ance to this community. Up to this time
the city has won all the points in the liti-
CATION. A decree has been obtained in
the Superior Court holding that the title
is vested in the city. Under these cir
cumstances the city has no motive for
arresting the litigation, and can only be
preiudiced bv any legislative measure at
this time. Even should the bill pass and
the Legislature give tho property back to
the State, the State would then have to
again go over all the legal ground which
has been covered by the city of Oakland
during the past four years before it could
GUST the railroad from possession. So far
as the State courts are concerned, final
decision is about to be reached, and the
interjection of Assem- bly1nan Leayitt's bill
is certainly 10 be deprecated.
Men best acquainted with the methods
of the corporation in waterfront matters
declare openly that this bill would be one
OF the greatest draw backs, if passed, to the
city's legal status at this time. 1t cannot
benefit the city, but might benefit the
railroad.
1t is not contended that Assembly man
Frank Leavitt derived his inspiration
from the Southern Pacific Company; it is
believed that he drafted the measure be-
cause he thought 1t was in the best in
terests of the early improvement of the
water front, most of which is located in
his Assembly district.
Should the bill, however, be introduced,
it will most certainly receive all the SUD-
port the railroad can give it, and those
best acquainted with the inside history OF
~ 1.st,, he