REPORT. SAN FRANCISCo, November 1st, 1867. TO THE BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COMMISSIONERS: At the date of my last Report the following suits were pending and undetermined: 1. The People v. The Broadway Wharf Company. 2. The People v. The Pacific Wharf Company. 3. The People v. The Claimants of the Market Street Wharf. 4. The People v. The Central Wharf Company. 5. The People v. John G. Klumpke, and others. 6. The Broadway and Pacific Wharf Company v. George Goss, and the members of the Board of State Harbor Commissioners, individually. Since that time the following suits have been commenced: 7. The People v. The Steamer "America." 8 The People v. The " Moses Taylor." 9. George T. Maryo v. Joseph Galloway, and others. 10. The People v. The San Francisco and Alameda Railroad Company The above ten cases are all upon which I have now to report. At the time my last report was made, "the wharf cases" (No. 1 to 4, inclusive) were in the Supreme Court awaiting argument. They were subsequently argued orally and upon briefs; and after a most thorough and careful examination by the Court, the judgments of the District Courts were in all things affirmed, and the title of the State to the con tested wharves fully established. The question of damages for the detention of the wharves then became important, and was the subject of much negotiation with the parties representing the several defendants. As possession of the wharves could not be obtained until the litigation was ended, it was manifestly for the interest of the State that the most speedy adjustment possible should be made. The damages, when recovered, would be payable in currency, while the revenues withheld would be paid in gold. During the litigation it would be for the interest of the defendants to use the wharves as much as possible, and to expend no money for repairs. They would thus when finally recovered be in so dilapitated a condition as to be of little or no value to the State until rebuilt. The interference with the carrying out of the system for the control of the water front, from having four of the principal wharves in the hands of competing parties, was so great as to be a very strong argument in favor of the speediest settlement possible. Four powerful companies, defended by as many of the ablest lawyers in the State, could protract the litigations many months; and as by law they were allowed to set off the value of the wharves they had built against the damages claimed, it was at least possible that they would be able to persuade a jury that in losing the wharves they were sufficiently punished for having intruded upon the property of the State. Such has been the result in other cases; and in view of all the facts stated it was not doubtful what course should be pursued. When, therefore, an offer of the immediate surrender of the four wharves, and the payment of fifty thousand dollars damages, in currency, was received, and it was apparent that no better settlement could be made, the proposition was accepted. The wharves passed at once under the control of the Board, and the damages were paid. The receipt of sixty-three thousand six hundred and twelve dollars, in gold, from the four wharves since that time (eight months,) has conclusively demonstrated the wisdom of the settlement. It is a subject of just congratulation that you have thus been able to recover for the State property wrongfully withheld that now pays over one hundred thousand dollars a year, and that, measured by the income it produces, is of the value of at least one million of dollars. The suit of the People v. Klumpke, and others, (No. 5.) was brought to recover possession of the water front between Jackson and Pacific streets. Since my last report it has been tried in the Fourth District Court, and a verdict and judgment obtained against the defendants. A motion for a new trial has been denied, and they have now appealed to the Supreme Court. It will undoubtedly be disposed of at the next term, and I have as yet seen no reason to doubt that the judgment will be affirmed. If I am not disappointed in this expectation, the result will place the Commissioners in the possession of the entire water front, will end the various litigations in relation to it without a suit having been lost, and will vindicate the wisdom of the Legislature by which the present system was adopted. The action brought by the Broadway and Pacific Wharf Companies against George Goss and others, (No. 6,) was instituted to restrain the Oakland Ferry Company from taking a lease from the Commissioners for a portion of the slip between Pacific and Broadway streets. The Twelfth District Court having dissolved the injunction and decided in favor of the defendants, the suit was adjusted beiween the plaintiffs and ferry company, and finally dismissed. Cases numbers seven and eight were brought against the steamers America and Moses Taylor, to recover wharfage due and unpaid by them. Their owners not residing within the State, the actions were commenced directly against the vessels, under the provisions of the statute of this State authorizing proceedings in that form. Judgments were obtained in each case in the District Court against the defendants, and they bave appealed to the Supreme Court. The cases were argued and submitted at the last April term, but have not yet been decided. The only defence relied upon is the unconstitutionality of the Act of the Legislature under which the suits were brought. Its constitutionality has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, but after the appeals were taken in these cases, a decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States, at Washington, that it is claimed overrules the decisions heretofore made by our own Courts. If this be so, it is yet claimed that the defendants have failed to present to the Court any of the facts necessary to make the decision applicable to their several cases. It is expected that decisions will be had at the next term of the Supreme Court. Case number nine is of no interest to the Commissioners except as it involved the title to a portion of the water front between Market and Clay streets. The Board having contracted with Galloway & Boobar for the widening of East street, as required by law, and the contractors having commenced their work, George T. Marye commenced this action against them, alleging that he was the owner of the premises, and obtained an injunction forbidding the contractors from further prosecuting their work. As the time within which they were to complete it was limited by their contract, and would have expired long before a trial could be had, the contractors were compelled to abandon their contract. As the Commissioners were not parties to the suit nor enjoined thereby, and the public interest required that the work should be done, they proceeded without delay and were allowed to complete it without further interruption. The suit was reached in its regular order the last week in October, and was then dismissed by the plaintiff. The suit of the People v. the San Francisco and Alameda Railroad Company (No. 10) was brought to recover from the defendant's the wharfage upon freight over their railroad, landed by them upon the wharf in this city. Its payment was resisted by them upon the ground that the Commissioners had granted to the Alameda Ferry Company the privilege of using a portion of the slip between Broadway and Pacific streets, "for the purpose of ferriage only," without charge therefor, as they were required by law to do. Under this privilege it was claimed that the Alameda Railroad Company had the right to bring all the freight of Alameda County, if they could get it, and because they used the ferry boat to land it upon the wharf, and hence have an exemption from the charge upon it, that all other common carriers were required to pay. The same rule would give the Pacific Railroad Company, when completed, the same exemption; and it was so manifestly unjust and so unfair to shippers of produce from all other parts of the State, that the Commissioners insisted upon the payment of wharfage, and a case was made and submitted to the Fourth District Court. Judgment was rendered in favor of the Commissioners, and the railroad company have appealed to the Supreme Court. It is expected that it will be decided at the next term. I cannot doubt but that the judgment will be affirmed. The foregoing comprises all the business now in my hands, and is respectfully submitted. EDWARD TOMPKINS, |
