USA > California > Alameda County > Past and present of Alameda County, California, Volume I > Part 9
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60
In the summer of 1877 a clamor was raised in favor of taking legal steps to open up the case from the beginning, the particular occasion for which was the dedication by the Oakland Water Front Company to the city of "the channel of San Antonio creek from ship channel, in the Bay of San Francisco, to the town of San Antonio, said channel or navigable watercourse to be included between parallel lines, and to have an uniform width of 400 feet," a width that was deemed insufficient for the future commercial wants of Oakland.
On November 10, 1879, the Central Pacific Railroad Company filed a com- plaint against the city of Oakland in an action to quiet the title to the water front. On December Ist, same year, the council authorized the employment of counsel to defend the suits just instituted against the city to quiet the title to the water front. Albert A. Cohan was employed, his retainer being $5,000. A little later Col. J. P. Hoge was employed and a similar retainer was ordered paid to him.
On January 12, 1882, there was passed "An ordinance to prevent further litigation concerning the Oakland water front." Judge Baldwin had previously said: "The grant of the exclusive franchise by the trustees is absolutely void. The power to lay out and regulate wharves being given to the council, cannot be exercised by Carpentier. We think that the general grant of this exclusive privilege is wholly void as exceeding the powers of the corporation." Judge Hoffman said that "the legality of the grant of an exclusive franchise cannot for a moment be supported." The supreme court of California decided: "We think then that this general grant of this exclusive privilege is wholly void." Governor Haight gave it as his opinion that "The claim advanced by the Water Front Company is perfectly baseless." In 46 Cal. 18, appear these words :
67
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
"Nothing short of a very explicit provision in the law will justify the court in holding that the Legislature intended to permit the shore, between high and low water mark, to be converted into private ownership."
Early in 1882 a petition signed by over one thousand residents of Oakland asked the council to pass the proposed ordinances providing for the dismissal of the suits pending between the city and the Central Pacific Railroad Company and the Water Front Company. The ordinance provided that the city should file a disclaimer of any interest or estate in certain water front lands in contention. The petitioners desired that all suits should be withdrawn and all contests ended, and hence the decisive action of the council in January, 1882, in filing in court a disclaimer to any portion of the water front not already settled. It was claimed that the unwise action of the city in suing over again cases that had already been settled several times drove the railroad company to Port Costa where they could build grain warehouses on land the title of which was not contested. That company had planned here wharves and warehouses on the city front, but just at the critical moment wiseacres raised a great furore concerning the title, suit was commenced and the result was enormous costs and the loss of the valu- able improvements.
The water front trouble in 1892 was serious. The Water Front Company, it was presumed, owned the frontage, but when they began to sell the tracts and when the purchasers began to take possession at this time, they were forced off by rioting mobs which claimed that the water front belonged to the city. In August the Water Front Company announced its willingness to do anything fair and reasonable for the improvement of the water front. Mr. Crocker officially said, "If your city will act in harmony with this company there can be no reason- able doubt about the future of the water front." They were ready to lease or sell any portion of the frontage not already disposed of. The case which was considered to settle the title to the water front property came up in the superior court in August, 1892, and was entitled Oakland Water Front Company vs. J. P. Dameron, et al., and was brought to quiet title to a tract on the creek frontage between Webster and Alice streets. The plaintiff was represented by A. A. Moore, J. C. Martin, A. B. Hotchkiss, C. E. Wilson, Harvey S. Brown and Frank Shay. The defendants were represented by A. B. Coffin, Michael Mullaney, Ben Morgan and W. R. Favis.
The three superior judges in October, 1892, Henshow, Greene and Ellsworth, decided that the Carpentier ordinance should go into the evidence; that the ordi- nance was a valid instrument, that there were no reasons apparent that the grant was obtained by Carpentier improperly or illegally and that the town trustees had the right to authorize the transfer of the tide lands to Carpentier. By January 18, 1893, sixty actual trial days had been consumed on the water front case. All of this time was occupied by the company in presenting its side of the case. The trial commenced on April 16, 1892, and there were numerous adjournments and suspensions to enable the lawyers to present their complex cases in the best and clearest light. The Chicago lake front decision had direct bearing upon many questions involved here. But the fact that the Chicago case in the supreme court was decided by four justices to three, furnished both sides in the Oakland case with an abundance of legal and colloquial material for new and advanced grounds in the great battle here. The first trial of the water front case was
68
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
tedious in the extreme. The appeal transcript numbered 2,000 pages. The com- pany introduced 272 exhibits and the city 149. The case was finally concluded late in 1898.
On January 24, 1893, the superior court of the county sitting in bank on the water front case granted the motion for a non-suit and thus threw the Water Front Company out of court. The court upheld the motion to strike out the evi- dence of the grant or grants from the town of Oakland to H. W. Carpentier and all the other evidences of title in the Water Front Company to the land in ques- tion. The decision of the court followed in a large measure the findings of the supreme court of the United States in the Chicago lake front case. It was a complete and crushing defeat for all the claims growing out of the presumed transfer of the Oakland water front to Mr. Carpentier-a cloud that hung like the sword of Damocles over all the water front title here. A stay of sixty days was granted to enable the company's attorneys to perfect an appeal. The jury fees were $2,147. Thus the state owned the water front. The city had shame- fully abused its trust. It had the right in the interest of commerce and naviga- tion to give short leases for the use of small portions to various individuals or corporations, but it did not have the right to give away or sell over nine thousand acres of land and about thirteen miles of water front to one corporation in per- petuity. The decision was that a state had rights to water front land which Leg- islatures and city councils could not alienate nor overturn. This should have been the decision and would have been, back in 1854, had not the influence and money of Carpentier prevented the correction of the papers in the case upon the suggestion of the state supreme court. But the trouble was not ended.
The question of riparian rights was not settled by this decision. If the Water Front Company could establish their claim to riparian rights they would gain control of the tide to low water and thus virtually a title to deep water. Thus it was believed that the state should at once proceed to adjust all the riparian claims.
The water front decision directly affected Berkeley, as the stretch of water on the west had ever been a vexing question. The extension of streets westward to the water was violently opposed by all persons claiming the tide lands and water front. Private owners claimed the shore of the bay out to deep water and thus public construction of piers and wharves was effectually stopped. The decision of the court caused great rejoicing among all persons who claimed the right of the town to the bay frontage.
It was this decision of the supreme court in 1893 that really freed Oakland from the fetters of the iniquitous water front octopus. All the right of the Water Front Company to fully three-fourths of the frontage was totally denied on the estuary and rendered unprofitable the further holding of the remainder. The company, seeing the inevitable, offered its holdings for sale at the rate of about one hundred and fifty dollars a front foot ; this land lay along the north shore be- tween Broadway and the Peralta street slips. This freedom of the water front from contest was succeeded by the rapid completion of the ships channel, the con- struction of ample wharves and the establishment of large and valuable indus- tries. The Adams wharf was built east of the bridges with a frontage of 1,540 feet where vessels drawing twenty-three feet of water at low tide could load and unload. Balfour Guthrie & Company, built similar improvements at the
69
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
foot of Market street, which were controlled by the Howard Company. James de Fremery built large improvements on the Session's Basin property. By 1902 Oakland harbor could boast of the following advantages: Ships and cars met on its water front ; it was land locked; no storm disturbed its waters; it was the only quiet harbor on the bay where no wind disturbed the vessels; it had the largest yard on the bay for the building of wooden ships; already the tonnage built annually exceeded that of all other ship yards on the shores of San Fran- cisco bay combined; here was the only marine railway dock for repairing and cleaning large ships in San Francisco bay; the largest wooden sailing vessels ever built on the shores of San Francisco bay were launched from Oakland shipyards; the largest coal bunkers in the state were here.
In 1893 the so-called water front bill was introduced in the Legislature by Earl and Dodge. It appropriated $15,000 to defray the costs and expenses nec- essary to employ counsel to conduct suits to quiet the title to the Oakland water front, San Antonio creek and its bays and estuaries and the Alameda water front and for the recovery of the same by the authorities. The water front bill was drawn by W. R. Davis at the request of Assemblyman Dodge. The appro- priation of $15,000 was changed to $10,000. The bill repealed all the ordinances of the city council granting the Oakland water front to Carpentier and gave the property to the city to be held in trust for the public. The whole city of Oakland was dumfounded late in March, 1893, upon receipt of the message that Governor Markham had refused to approve the water front bill. He said that if the state had the power, as assumed by the bill, to pass the title to the water front which it held as a public trust, then it was a matter of history that it had already parted with the title by the act of 1852 by which it was granted to the city of Oakland ; that if the state had the power to grant away the title, then the present act was idle and meaningless, and that as a matter of public policy why should the state make a special grant of this character to one municipality, when it had been declared the policy in all other instances to manage trusts of this character through the instrumentality of its own chosen officers who were directly respon- sible to it, as in the instance of the San Francisco harbor water front and those of San Diego and Humboldt bay.
Judge McKenna of the United States circuit court decided in 1893 that neither the city nor the railway company should take any further action concerning the water front until the rights of both parties were settled in court. In 1893 the city of Oakland began suit against the Water Front Company to quiet title to a strip of land extending from Lake Merritt around the water front part of the Oakland mole. The examination of H. W. Carpentier was a striking feature of the trial in 1893. He was an old man and had heaps of papers before him, but answered satisfactorily all questions put by counsel, though slowly and deliberately. He produced many of the original documents of the very early history of the city and threw much light on disputed points. He said that in 1852, when the place was incorporated as a town, it had but six or eight buildings and but sixty to seventy inhabitants. In March, 1894, the supreme court of the United States refused the motion made by City Attorney Johnson to make the city of Oakland plaintiff with the state in the water front case. This left the city in an independent position for any further action concerning the water
70
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
front. In May Judge Ogden denied the application of the Water Front Company for a change of venue.
The city sued the Water Front Company to recover the entire water front. The defendant answered and the city entered a demurrer which was sustained by Judge Ogden. The company then filed an amended answer in which appeared the following statement: That the entire water front of the former town and city of Oakland outside of the harbor between the line of high tide and ships channel and for a distance of more than 21/2 miles between said points, in its natural state, was and still is entirely unfitted for commercial pur- poses and uses by reason of the shallowness of the water thereon; that in order to construct a wharf in aid of commerce it is necessary to fill in or drive piles for the distance of 21/2 miles before ships channel is reached and before a point is reached at which ocean steamers or vessels can land or receive their cargoes ; that when the deed was made and delivered to Carpentier the title to said land was valid by the laws of the State of California as then expounded by all the departments of its government and administered in its courts of justice. Wherefore defendant (the Water Front Company) says that the validity of said title cannot be impaired by any subsequent decision of the courts of said state altering the construction of the laws under which defendant acquired his prop- erty. The answer stated that the water front was sold for $150 under a judgment against the city in 1854.
In July, 1895, Judge Ogden decided that the city of Oakland was the real owner of the water front and that the Carpentier grant in 1852 was not legal. The basis of the decision was that the grant was against public policy. The num- ber of acres recorded by this decision was about seven thousand eight hundred and seventy. All of the fourteen titles held by the Water Front Company were declared illegal. The decision left the railroad company in possession of eighty acres. The Water Front Company was left in possession of all the improve- ments it had made-moles, wharves, slips and ferry landings. This case was hotly contested on both sides and the decision was not only exhaustive but con- tained a complete history of every step in the controversy. The company promptly appealed from the decision.
Alameda was directly affected by the water front decision. Being a peninsula it had more water frontage than had Oakland or Berkeley.
On March 18, 1895, news was received that Chief Justice Fuller had deliv- ered an opinion dismissing the bill in equity brought by California against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company involving the ownership of the Oakland water front for want of original jurisdiction. Nothing concerning the merits of the case was settled by this ruling.
In August, 1896, the Oakland water front case was submitted to the supreme court, the attorneys for the city being W. R. Davis, E. J. Pringle and W. L. Hill. In his argument before the supreme court of the United States W. R. Davis summed up the case for the city of Oakland with the following points: First, that under the act of May 4, 1852, viewing the statutory language as language and getting its true construction, the trust is so expressed that it appears affirmatively that the city could not part with its title to this water front or abdicate its trust to another ; second, that there is no fair or just construction of the ordinance of 1852 or of any of the subsequent ordinances or proceedings
71
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY .
under which any estate greater than for a term of thirty-seven years can be found ever to have been created, and that the thirty-seven years have expired, ending May 17, 1889, long before this suit was begun; third, that under the gen- eral doctrine of the decisions, English and American, and of immemorial usage and the common law, as well as under the doctrine of the great Chicago decision and of the decision in Shively vs. Bowlby, Webber vs. The Harbor Commis- sioners, Pollards Lessees vs. Hagan and Martin vs. Waddell, no title in this water front could pass to any private owner, whether in the estuary surrounding and underlying this government harbor or extending from shore line into the ocean waters of the bay. The city was not a party to the suit, but was per- mitted to participate as amicus curiae by special leave of the court. As the case progressed the court saw from the evidence and facts that the state had granted the water front to the town and city of Oakland and that it seemed therefore that the city was a party if not the real party interested. Later in the case it seemed as if the court was concerned as to whether the suit brought by the state should not practically go out of court without disposing of the real merits and great questions involved and whether the court should conclude not to take up the matter piece meal, but await the coming up of one of the other water front suits on writ of error, at which time with all evidence before them the court could determine the rights of all parties.
On September 13, 1897, the supreme court of California decided that pri- vate ownership of the water front lands of Oakland could not extend below ordi- nary low tide, thus securing for the exclusive control of the people the water where wharves and landings could be constructed. The next step on the part of the city was to establish its right to open all streets to the line of low tide. With this additional right no private corporation or individual, it was declared, could control or levy tolls on the water commerce of Oakland and would be forever barred from any interference with the brilliant prospects of the city.
The supreme court in September, 1897, remanded the suits of the city of Oakland against the Water Front Company to the superior court of this county for a new trial. The city in 1898 was represented by W. R. Davis, W. L. Hill, E. J. Pringle and H. A. Powell, and the company by A. A. Moore, W. F. Herrin, J. C. Martin and H. S. Brown.
Early in 1897 there were pending against the city several suits for pieces of land on the water front. S. G. Cook sued for a tract at the foot of Peralta street, the Southern Pacific Company sued for possession of the wharf at the foot of Broadway and the same company sued Ex-Mayor George C. Pardee and the members of the old city council for their act of removing the piles driven in the water front. In the case of Taylor against Dortin and others over water front lands at the foot of Castro street, the defendants won and therefore re- mained in possession of the property. The Oakland Water Front Company had a collateral interest in the suit as lessors of the property to C. B. Taylor. At this time water frontage sold at from $40 to $200 per front foot. In 1891 the city paid the company $500 per acre for two acres for a pumping station site, but this did not carry frontage rights. Mr. Moore, attorney for Mr. Taylor, appealed the case.
The purpose of the city's fight was to show by exhibits and testimony the use and dedication of the streets leading to the water front prior to and at the
-
72
. HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
time of the compromise of 1868. This purpose was in conformity with the order contained in the supreme court decision holding the city to be entitled to all the streets across the water front to low tide line where such dedication and uses could be established. The company claimed that prior to 1868 the streets in question could not of necessity be public highways dedicated by user to public use.
On February 7, 1901, Judge Ogden filed an opinion in the suit of the city against the Oakland Water Front Company to quiet title to tide lands, that the title to such land was still vested in the city providing it owned the water front prior to 1868 when the streets were dedicated to public use. This left the street question open for the supreme court.
The suit of the city against the Oakland Water Front Company was finally disposed of in April, 1902, by Judge Ogden who signed the decree in accord- ance with his findings a week before. The supreme court decision took from the company nearly eight thousand acres of land, but left them the lands improved or in course of improvement by them. The city paid the costs of the first trial. and the company of the retrial.
In February, 1906, Oakland granted to the Western Pacific Railroad Com- pany the right of way to the water front and to maintain and lay tracks, build terminal depots, warehouse slips and freight sheds at the end of a pier to be constructed at the end of the north training wall along the estuary and directly opposite the Alameda mole pier line of the Southern Pacific. As the latter claimed the strip of land over which the Western Pacific line would have to be built, it asked for and was granted an injunction to prevent work thereon. An appeal was taken and sustained by the circuit court of appeals. The latter held that it was plainly set forth in the transfer of the water front to Carpentier in 1852 that the rights of the Southern Pacific terminated at the end of thirty- seven years. The court said, "The line of low tide that was in existence at the time of the act of May 4, 1852, was enacted as the boundary of the grant of the state to the city of Oakland. The state is the sole owner of the land beyond that boundary." The decision stated in effect that the Southern Pacific was practi- cally a trespasser upon property to which it had no right.
It was a settled fact in 1906 that although the courts had decided that the water front lands belonged to the Southern Pacific, the right to construct wharves and regulate their use still belonged to Oakland. It was further settled that the proper course for the city was to secure competing lines of railway. However, at this time Oakland had been free for twelve years from the domi- nation of the Southern Pacific system. Therefore, when it was proposed in February, 1907, to transfer to the state officials the right to assume sovereignty over the water front, many citizens promptly opposed the measure. It was seen that such a step might again place the whole water front under the domination of the railroad company. The betrayals of 1852, 1868 and 1881 were not for- gotten nor forgiven-were a perpetual injunction against the surrender of munic- ipal rights.
It appeared early in 1907 that the Southern Pacific and the Western Pacific had united to gain control of the water front for fifty years through the Leavitt bill. Their intentions were personally opposed at Sacramento by Mayor Mott and
73
.
HISTORY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
his immediate supporters. Through their efforts the bill was abandoned by the railway representatives.
The final vote in the council in November, 1910, on the' proposition to lease a tract on the water front to the Southern Pacific Company was nine to two in favor of the franchise. This was regarded as the settlement of fifty years of struggle over the water front claims. About the same time the war department conceded to Oakland the right to reclaim the submerged lands in the Key Route basin.
The Seventh street franchise for fifty years was granted to the Southern Pacific Company in December 1910 upon the following terms: (1) That the railroad should receive 5 per cent interest on the capital invested-$723,500; (2) that the railroad should also receive 2 per cent on this sum for a parking fund; (3) that the railroad should receive 70 per cent of the gross amount col- lected for cost of operation, taxes, etc. This was a definite and fixed percentage which should not be increased and during the term of the franchise should in- clude the cost to the railroad of renewals, betterments, etc., ordinarily included in the term "cost of operations;" (4) that the remainder should be divided between the company and the city in the proportion of 35 per cent to the city and 65 per cent to the company. This was called "the Oakland Plan."
CHAPTER V
TRANSPORTATION
There passed the Legislature on May 20, 1861, an act granting to certain persons "the right to construct and maintain a railroad through certain streets in the city of Oakland." The line ran from a point at or near the westerly end of the bridge leading from the city of Oakland to the town of Clinton to a point on the Bay of San Francisco, where the Alameda county shore approaches nearest to Yerba Buena Island, or at such a point as a railroad may be built from to said island. The right to so construct, maintain, and operate was granted to Rodmond Gibbons, William Hillegass, R. E. Cole, Samuel Wood, Joseph Black and George Goss, their associates, successors or assigns, for a period of fifty years. On November 20, 1861, right of way along Seventh street from its easterly limits to or near its junction with Market street, and thence in a straight line to the western boundary of the city, was granted and released to the San Francisco and Oakland Railroad Company, for the purpose of laying a single or double railroad track and the necessary side-tracks. On September 2, 1863, the first train of cars passed over the line, the track being completed from the end of the wharf to Broadway. After that date the cars made regular trips, in con- nection with the Contra Costa ferry-boat. The first engine and first three cars used on the line were built at Oakland Point by Mr. Young. The San Francisco and Alameda railroad was being constructed and its junction with the Oakland line was seriously contemplated. On April 1, 1865, the local line was extended to Larue's wharf, at San Antonio (Brooklyn) beyond which it did not go until purchased by the Central Pacific.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.