The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-08-12
STILL FIGHTING
FOR WATER FRONT
Oakland Reopens Historic Lite
CATION interrupted by Great
San Francisco Fire
Especial Dispatch 10 The Call


OAKLAND, Aug. 1.-THE denial to-
day by Superior Judge Ogden of the
city of Oakland's motion for a new
trial of its suit to compel the open
ing of about so streets through to the
water front was the signal for the
reopening of historic litigation which
has been suspended for more than three
years through the destruction of a
mass of records in the San Francisco
fire of 1906.
The suit, which was begun eight
years ago, involves the contention of
the city that the Oakland water front
company, holder of an ancient grant
to all the territory fronting on Oak
land harbor, was not justified in OBJ
structing the ends of a number of
streets leading toward the water front,
which had never been opened through
to the waters edge.
ALREADY TRIED TWICE
Already the case has been tried
twice in the superior courts, appealed
once, and the records were about COM
plete for a second appeal when the
San Francisco fire reduced them to
ashes. Since the fire the attorneys for
the city of Oakland, William r. Davis,
former mayor of the city; H. A. Powell
and w. Lair Hill, have been engaged
in the gigantic task of restoring them,
and their labors, which have occupied
three years, have just been completed.
Today the attorneys for the city sub
mitted their motion for a retrial of
the case in the superior court, but
Judge Ogden, who in a decision hand
ed down just before the San Francisco
fire., had cut the cfty's claim for 80
anrfr 30 ted
the motion and signed their bill of
exceptions for an appeal to the SUI
preme court, which will be taken i'm
mediately
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The history of the case dates back
as far as the original grant by the
city to the Oakland water front COM
pany of all the territory on the water
front, between low and high tide lines,
extending from the easterly extremity
of the city's frontage to the foot of
Twenty street on the western
bay shore. When the case was first
tried in the superior courts the de-
cision was favorable to the city, and
the attorneys for the water front COM
pany carried the case to the supreme
court, claiming title to all the side
lands to depth of 20 feet at high tide.
The court decided, however, that the
grant did not extend any further than
the low tide line. This decision cut
the water front company's claim from
5000 to about 1000 acres of land, and
the court denied the water front COM
pany's motion for a new trial with ref
erence TO such new streets as had been
dedicated across the strip left to them.
This strip varies in width at different
sections of the water front.
COMPROMISE OF 1868
The supreme court also held that all
the streets dedicated prior to the COM
promise of 1868 were valid. In accord
ance with this decision the city claimed
that about 80 streets, which had been
declared public streets by ordinance
prior to the compromise of 1858, should
be opened to the water front
The water front company succeeded
in obtaining a new trial, the case was
retired before Judge Ogden, and the
city had prepared its record for sec
ond appeal, when the fire brought the
proceedings to a halt. The restored
records comprise about 5000 pages of
printed matter. and include all of the
original record of the water front COM
panys first appeal, SO that in the
event the. city desires to carry the case
to the supreme court of the United
States the complete record of the liti-
cation will be available.