The record-union., 1897-09-14
OAKLAND WATER FRONT.
The Supreme Court Renders a De-
cision in the Case.

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 13.-The
Supreme Court to-day decided the case
of the city of Oakland against the Oak
land Water Front Company. In sub
stance, the opinion of the court is that
the Oakland Water Front Company is
thesowner of all the land between high
and low tide on the north side of the
San Antonio estuary, from the inter
section of the northeast boundary line
Of the city with the estuary, down the
estuary to its mouth in the bay, thence
TO ship channel" thence nOrtherly and
easterly, along the bay front Of the
city to its northerly boundary. 1t de-
MES the title of the Water Front Com
pany to the land between high and low
tide around the eastern or Brooklyn
basin, or on the south side of the es-
Tuary, and between low tide and the
three-fathom or four-fathom line, as
the term "Ship channel was indeter-
minately claimed to mean by both the
city of Oakland and the Water Front
Company.
The claim that the people of the
State of California still held title to
the lands in controversy by reason of
the want of power in the Legislature to
ALLEVIATE it in the way it was attempt
ed to be alienated, though vigorously
supported by Justices Harrison and
Henshaw in the dissenting opinion, is
denied by the opinion of the court
The prevailing opinion Of the court
was written by Chief Justice Beatty,
and concurTed IN by Justices Temple
and Van Fleet. It makes 10000 words.
The following is q summary:
THE grant of the town Of Oakland
of its water front in the Act incorporat-
ing Oakland in the year 1852 is legal.
The attempt to transfer the water front
10 Horace W. Carpenter in the same
year is illegal, the Legislature not hav
ing conferred upon the Town Trustees
such power. All efforts to Iegalize this
transfer subsequently and until 1868
were not legal, because such Act could
not be retroactive. The compromise
of 1868 transferred to the Oakland
Water Front Company the land grant
ed the town in 1852, because the State
Legislature had expressly conferred
upon the city of Oakland by legislative
Act the power to make such comprom-
ise as might be necessary, and acting
under this authority the transfer was
made.
THE water front is defined to be only
the land between high tide and low
tide, and does not include the East
Oakland Basin or the Alameda tide
lands which were claimed by the Water
Front Company in this suit. These
tide lands are held to be without the
Chicago decision, which is declared to
effect only navigable waters"
Concurring opinions were also rem
dered by Justices Mcfarland and Gar
Quite.
In rendering a dissenting opinion.
Justice Harrison said in substance:
THE States holds title to all tide lands
and lands under the water, and cannot
transfer title in large parcels. The
Legislature had no power to delegate
TO the city of Oakland the right to
transfer this land absolutely TO any
one, and consequently the grant to
Carpenter in 1852 was illegal. Subse-
Quent efforts of the Legislature to con-
firm this grant were illegal, because
these Acts could not be retroactive and
they have no power to take such act.
The compromise of 1868 was not a
transfer of title, because the Legisla-