The San Francisco call., 1909-02-19

in support of the proposed settlement
Oh the water front controversy with
the Southern Pacific company. Mayor
Mott City Attorney McElroy and City
Engineer Turner sent TO the city coun-
ell, by request of several members, this
evening a statement which bore upon
some phases of the situation. The
communication analyses criticism which
has been made and supplies informa
ton on several points.
SUPPLIES INFORMATION
1t is as follows:
To the City Council of the City Of Oak
land-Gentlemen: In response to the request OF
several of your members the undersigned. the
especially beg leave to submit to your non
srable body the following comments on certain
criticisms of the proposed action or the city
council and the board of public works IN rela-
tion to the water front
1t is charged that If section or the memo
randum of agreement should become effective
it would give, to the Southern Pacific railroad;
Of the valuabla franchises on Seventh and
First streets. as they are now operated; Sec,
proposed agreement relate to Seventh street
or First street railroad franchises west OF the
north arm of the estuary. :.
In addition. everybody knows or ought TO
know, that no franchise can be given or ex-
tended except by ordinance. passed by the city
council and approved by the mayor Ihere,
fore the alleged fear that section of the said
document will or can any franchise OF
the Southern Pacific is foolish and absurd.
1t is also claimed that section OF the said
agreement above referred to will enable the
1000 feet more of 0akland's water front df-
rectly north of the present Southern PACIFIC
ferry slip. This imaginary effect OF section
would be, as certain critics affect to believe
and would have the people Of Oakland also
believe. to M virtually bottle up the Key Route ute
front.
cihe company within eight years; az its own
expense to remove long wharf and trestle com
& BACK s tho to point due earrr 6l he n
the Southern Pacific company.
oBSTRUCTS NAVIGATION
The long wharf and trestle referred to project
into the bay several thousand feet and are an
obstruction to the entrance to the Key Route
basin Long wharf removed completely back
to a point due north of the western end of the
existing passenger ferry slip OF the Southern
trance to the Key Route basin Instead OF
S9tting d up that hat basin has the & ono Of u Long
Removing Long wharf does not mean to re-
build It in another place, but means that it
shall be torn up and taken away.
Nor will. as claimed By certain critics, the
'emoyal of Lon. wharf give the Southern Pa
Pacific ferry slip. The proposed removal Of
an additional inch OF water front anywhere.
On the contrary, i will deprive It Of several
nundred rect OF frontage now covered Dy the
Lcng wharf northward Of the northern line of
the broad gauge mole and westward of the
present passenger ferry slip.
1t is claimed by certain parties endeavoring
to make themselves and the people of Oakland
believe that the words remove Long wharf
and trestle back to point due north of the
existing passenger ferry slip OF the Southern
Pacific mean that the end of Long wharf can,
from its present position and placed at "a
point due north OF the existing passenger feSry
slip OF the Southern Pacific company. This con-
fQnfinn * imnOSeibia
REMOVAL is POSSIBLE
The end of the Long wharf is thousand or
more feet in width. On it are a number OF sheds
thousand or more feet long. We respectfully
submit that this contention is absurd and silly
and that the Southern Pacific could not, even IL
1t wanted to and were permitted to do So pick
up those great structures and remove them east
ward an inch, let alone the half mile or more
that ntervenes between their present position
and "a point due north of the western end of
the existing passenger ferry slip of the Southern
Pacific company
1t is also asserted without the slightest foun-
dation in fact. that Mayor Mott and the board
of public works are seeking to change the law so
that they may deliver to the Southern Pacific
0akland's water front. The law which is re-
ferred TO is the recent decision of the United
States circuit court of appeals whereby the
wharfng out privileges water front were
confirmed to the city of Oakland To claim that
the mayor of Oakland could, even il he wanted
TO. change the law thus laid down is false and
absurd To assert that the present mayor of
Oakland wants TO- even If he could change that
law is a baseless misrepresentation and untruth.
Upon the insulting, unwarranted and founda-
tionless attacks made the personal and Of
fcial honor, honesty and integrity of the mem
bers of the city council and board of public
works the undersigned have comments to
make. We might however. hazard the opinion
that, II our critics can produce no better reason
than personal abuse of yourselves and ourselves,
for justification of their charges. there is little
reason to apprehend that the voters of Oakland
will be deceived by Misrepresentation. yilifca-
tion and slander. Very respectfully yours.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.