The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-09-14
THE State
ALONE HAS
THE RIGHT
The Supreme Court Decides
Against the City of
Oakland.
WATERFRONT CASE SETTLED
Land Worth Millions Finally
Goes to the Victorious
Corporation.
tXiCT BOUNDARIES ARE FIXED.
Area of the City Materially Reduced
by an Exceedingly Verbose
Opinion,
tXiCT BOUNDARIES ARE FIXED.
Area of the City Materially Reduced
by an Exceedingly Verbose
Opinion.


preme Court of California yesterday the
title of the Oakan Waterfront Com
pany to almost the entire water front of
the city OF Oakland was confirmed.
The lands in question have teen in
controversy between the city of Oakland
and the company named for years. The
estimated value is about IS 600 900. The
victorious corporation is one of the con-
stituent companies OF the Southern Pacific
Company.
In the lower court the city of Oakland
secured dScision in its favor but by the
decision of the Supreme Court the lower
court is reversed and a new trial ordered.
The opinion of the court comprises
about 10, 900 words. 1t was only in the
last 500 words that Chief Justice Beatty
gave any intimation that the case had
been decided in favor of the great rail
road corporation. Thirty-six pages of
closely typewriter legal cap were de-
voted to able arguments in favor of the
city OF Oakland. The thirty-seventh-the
last-contaIned the verdict against the
people of Oakland.
Incidentally a most important matter
to Oakland is decided. It's exact bound
aries are fixed in the opinion rendered by
the court. They materially reduce the
area claimed by both parties to the con-
troversy.
In brief the opinion held that only the
State has the right to grant tide lands,
and that the trustees of Oakland had For
have such right. 1t is contended, how
ever, that the Legislature, in empowering
Oakland TO com promise with Carpenter
ana the Oakland Waterfront Company,
virtually made the grant of the lands in
dispute direct to the latter.
The salient features OF the opinion of
the court, written by Chief Justice Beatty
and signed by Justices Temple aad Van
Vleet, follow:
This is an action to determine conflicting
claims 10 real estate. The subject of the con-
troversy is the land granted 10 the town of
Oakland by the original act of incorporation,
passed May l. 1852.
The claim OF the plaintiff is that as successor
to the town OF Oakland 1t continues to be the
owner OF the land so granted. The defendant
as successor to Horace W. Carpenter, claims
that the entire grant to the town of Oak. and
was, within a few days after the organization
of the Town Council, transferred 10 Carpen-
tier by ordinance and deed of conveyance;
that such transfer was subsequently con-
firmed and ratified by other ordinances and
proceedings of the town and city, by acts OF
the Legislature, by the estoppel OF judgments
and estoppels in pals, and that its title so
acquired is fortified Dy deeds made IN pur
Sua0ce oil execution sales on judgments
against the town and perfected by prescrip-
ton under the statute OF limitations. So TAR
as may find 1t necessary 10 discuss these va
rious deraiguments OF title, their particulars
will be stated as they arise.
Chief Justice Beatty at this point en-
tered upon N ella borate discussion of the
legislative act making the grant to Oak
land, and continued a S follows:
The result of this discussion may be briefly
summed up as follows: The boundary of the
town of Oakland, as defined by the ac- OF May
4, 1852, commencing at the intersection of
the northeast line with the line of low tide on
the eastern side OF the northern branch of the
estuary, follows the hue of low tide said
branch to the mouth OF the cas- tern basin,
crosses said mouth and continues along the
line of low tide on the eastern side Of She
estuary to its mouth in the bey, and thence
follows the line of low tide norther.y and
eHsterly Till it intersects The northeastern
boundary line, 10 the location of which
there seems 10 be no dispute. The grant TO
Oakland was OF the lands lying between high
water mark and ship channel within these
boundaries, and therefore included nothing
west Of the line of low tide on the bay front,
and nothing beyond the line of low tide on the
north aud west shore Of the estuary
If the conclusion above stated is sound; If
the grant to oakland comprised only the strip
of land bounded by the lines of ordinary
high and low tide, and extending along the
estuary and bay front of the town, the case is
at once relieved OF the question so much dis
cussed in tie argument as to the power of the
Legislature to make such a grant TO private
corporation or natural person; and the only
question 10 be considered Is whether the ate
has, in this instance, made the grant as
claimed.
A grant by the State of California, therefore,
OF mud fats and shoals between high and low
tide on the margin of the bay of San Francisco
cannot be held to have been in excess of the
legislative power IN the absence of any proof
that such grant has seriously i'm paired the
power OF succeeding Legislatures to regulate,
protect, improve or develop the public rights
of navigation or fishery, and in this case it
does not appear that he grant 10 Oakland as
here construed would have that fleet if trans
ferred to natural person or private corpora
tiOn
1t is true that the private ownership OF the
shore may prevent access TO the nAvigable
waters OF the BAY, but SO does the private own
ership OF the up.and prevent access 10 the
shore and to the navigable waters in The same
sense and to the same extent.
All the proceedings of the Oakland
Council in reference to the grant TO Car
pentier were reviewed and the Chief JUS
tice then declared as follows:
My conclusion upon this point is that the
ordinances aid deed of 1928, by which it
was attempted to transfer the entire water
front TO Carpenter, were wholly void.
These various attempts of Carpenter to
intrench himself are taken up in detail,
and are each and all declared to have
been fruitless. The court adds:
The foregoing discussion brings us down in
point of time TO the year 1868, when the suit
OF Oakland vs. Carpenter was finally dis
missed, and results in the conclusion that
Carpenter at that time had no title The at
tempted transfer 10 him OF the water front
was void, and the city of Oakland was free TO
assert her rights by any action or other pro-
ceeding appropriate to that state of the case
Carpenter, however, still asserted the valid
ity of his title, and appears to have retained
possession OF such portions of the water front
as he had found occasion To occupy by him.
SELF his lessees ana assignees.
In the year 1867 the authorities of Oakland
again began 10 stir in the matter. contract
was made, or proposed, by which an attorney
was retained Tor the purpose OF recovering for
the city the waterfront lands and the rights
connected herewith. But before the COM
mencement OF any action or other proceeding
for that purpose a compromise of the claims
of the city was proposed and accepted. At
that time The trans continental railroad was