------------------------------------------------------------------- 1877-04-27 - Sacto Daily Union, Vol. 3 #55, 1/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOMESTIC NEWS. Not Expected to Recover. New York, April 26th.—Edward D. Carpentier is very ill, and not expected to recover, from the effects of a surgical operation. His brother Horace is with him. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1892-07-03 - S.F. Call, Vol. 72 #33, 6/5: ------------------------------------------------------------------- OAKLAND’S TIN GODS. How the City Council Has Hurt California. AN UPHEAVAL IN PROSPECT. The People Have Borne Their Wrongs Long Enough. CARPENTIER’S SHADY TRANSACTION. Moon Said That It Was Not a Grant, but a Lease—An Interview With W. E. Hale. Every railroad company that has ever thought of coming to San Francisco has made inquiry, first, as to terminal facilities in Oakland. “Can we get anything there that will do as a point from which to run a ferry-line to San Francisco?’’ “No,” is always the reply. “Why not?” “The Southern Pacific Company controls the whole Oakland waterfront, from Emeryville to Brooklyn.” “Is there no other place we can get for a terminal?” “Oh, yes; plenty of places, but Oakland is the best.” “Then the Southern Pacific would have the inside track, and we would be left out in the cold?” “That’s the way it looks.” “Excuse us, then. We will run our railroad somewhere else. In this year of grace a railroad don’t amount to much unless it can get proper terminals.” And so all the newcomers are discouraged. But this sort of thing is going to stop. The little tin gods who run municipal affairs in Oakland have got to get out of the way, and let in that competing railroad for which all California languishes. It is not merely an Oakland question. It is of interest to the whole coast. Oakland’s Council has blocked the wheels of progress in this State long enough. It must take a back seat. Smarting under the wrongs that have been inflicted on them for so many years, and repudiating the oft-repeated insinuation that the “railroad owns Oakland,” the people across the bay are preparing a great surprise for their city officials. There will be an upheaval there before long. They are going to see if they can’t have a Mayor who thinks more of the people’s interests than to identify himself with the opponents of the people, as Mayor Chapman has done by going into court as associate counsel for the plaintiff in a suit begun in the Interest of the railroad company to eject private individuals who have sought to obtain portions of the water front. “The water front does not belong to the railroad,” declare the people. “It belongs to the city of Oakland.” From all that can be learned regarding the Oakland Water Front Company’s title to the property, this declaration is true. New information was cleaned yesterday in regard to the all-important question of the missing books, which would show whether the railroad has any right to the land under the Carpentier “grant.” A witness is found who says the books were destroyed by fire, and who declares that the grant never existed, the old Board of Trustees of Oakland merely leasing a portion of the water front to Carpentier. If this be true, John Jones, Henry Smith, the Australian Gum-tree Company, or the Siberian Reindeer Company has as much right to the water front as has the Southern Pacific Company, which, by the grace of the immaculate City Council of Oakland, now has virtual control of seven miles of it. MOON SAID IT WAS A FRAUD. An Interview With His Son-in-Law, William E. Hall. Had H. W. Carpentier ever any title to Oakland water-front lands? The people of Oakland say he had not. All the direct proof that can be obtained on the subject says he had not. And yet the Oakland Water Front gets its title from him and the railroad people get their exclusive privileges from the Oakland Water-front Company. The only difficulty that lies in the way of the people getting their own is the possession of the territory by the railroad. The Southern Pacific Company has encircled Oakland with a band which cannot easily be broken unless the City Council should break its record of subservience to the railroad. As much light as possible is being thrown on the transaction of the Oakland Board of Trustees in 1858, under which it is claimed by the railroad that Carpentier secured his title, but the tales told are conflicting. There is no documentary proof of the fact that Carpentier received a grant of the water-front lands from the Trustees. The two volumes of records covering the proceedings of the Trustees are missing. They might settle the dispute forever. If A. J. Moon were alive the truth regarding the whole matter might be known. He could tell what became of those books. Mr. Moon was a Town Trustee on the same board with Carpentier, who, it is said, never qualified for the office, though that statement, too, it uncertain. Mr. Moon died about 13 years ago, but he had talked with many persons during his latter years regarding the Carpentier transaction. His son-in-law, William E. Hall of this city, knows something of the matter. Mr. Hall is the clerk of the Chief of Police and the Board of Police Commissioners. “It is my belief,” he said yesterday, “that the records that are now demanded by the people of Oakland were burned.” “When?” was asked by The Call reporter. “In the early fifties. You see, the small house in which the Oakland Trustees used to meet, and in which the official books and papers of the city were kept, was destroyed by fire, and I have often heard that those missing documents showing the nature of the Carpentier transaction were burned at that time. It is certain that many papers were lost in that fire, and it is reasonable to believe that the Carpentier records were among them.” “Mrs. Moon is still living, is she not?” “Yes, but she is old and feeble, and could tell nothing of the matter.” “But has she no papers throwing light on the Carpentier transaction?” “No.” “Are there any in your family’s keeping?” “Well, my wife had a few. I do not know that they give any light on the Carpentier matter. My impression is that they did not. They referred to many other affairs regarding lands in Oakland.” “Why did Mr. Moon preserve them?” “Oh, I suppose he took an interest in keeping them. They were of no value as public records. The only thing that I think would be of any interest in this connection is a map which includes all the Oakland lands in the early fifties. That might show something.” “Where is the map?” “It is down at my ranch, near Fresno. My wife is there for the present, but I expect her here any day and she will bring it up. I wrote to her, asking her to bring it, as I thought it might be of some use.” “Did you send for any other papers?” “I asked to have any document that would seem to throw any light on the subject sent to me at once, but I have not received any, and I presume those looking over whatever papers there were at the ranch did not find any that they considered of any value as relating to this important matter. They looked all through Mr. Moon’s old papers.” “Did Mr. Moon ever say anything about a grant to Carpentier?” “He frequently talked of the transaction under which Carpentier gained possession of the water front, but it was no grant.” “What was it?” “Simply a lease. I am sure that is what Mr. Moon said concerning it. It was merely a lease.” “Mr. Moon knew, then, that Carpentier had no title?” “Yes, and he frequently denounced Carpentier’s assumption of rights as a fraud. That is all I know about the matter. I may know more when that map arrives here.” THE WATER-FRONT TRIAL. Attorneys Notified to Proceed With the Argument on Tuesday. It is unusual to hold court on Saturday in Oakland, but Judge Henshaw at the night session Friday ordered the jury, attorneys and litigants in the water-front suit to report for business at 9 a. m. yesterday. He did not say anything about the spectators, but they crowded into the courtroom, as usual. The Judge is anxious to get through with the odious affair, in order that his contemplated vacation trip to Honolulu may not be interfered with. When the day closed yesterday all the evidence was in, and the attorneys were told to be ready with their arguments next Tuesday. The defense closed in the forenoon, and evidence in rebuttal was taken. Mayor Chapman, one of the water-front attorneys, was called to the stand by his colleague Mr. Moore, and he denied most of the testimony given by Fortin in regard to the Mayor’s calling at Fortin’s house and ordering him to defend with guns his water front possessions against any raid of the Water Front Company, because he was in the right, and promising police protection to aid him. Other witnesses were recalled in rebuttal during the day, and gave unimportant testimony. City Clerk Brady and Deputy District Attorney Church were called to the stand to give evidence concerning maps and transactions or the city government tending to show that streets have been open to the water line. The case will end early this week. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1892-07-07 - S.F. Call, Vol. 72 #37, 8/1: ------------------------------------------------------------------- OAKLAND’S BAD BLOT. The Ruthless Railroad Runs the Town. MORE WATER-FRONT INIQUITY. The City Council Under Which Our Neighbors Stagger. A HARD HANDICAP TO PROGRESS. The Whole State of California Feels It and Protests. Three Lonely Honest Councilmen Who Have Struggled in Vain Against Most Shameful Jobbery. The little tin gods of Oakland—that is to say, the Mayor and City Councilmen—are beginning to have some respect for the wishes of the people who put them in office. “The railroad has run the town long enough,” say the people, “and we propose to take a hand in municipal affairs ourselves.” The Call’s efforts on behalf of the citizens are greatly appreciated across the bay. It was a surprise and a pleasure for the Oaklanders to note that there was one city paper that has Oakland’s interests at heart and recognizes the fact that the City Council of Oakland is a bar to the progress of the State, owing to its peculiar position geographically and the fact that it has had an ear only for the voice of the railroad and none for the voice of the people. The Call is determined to see that the little tin gods shall do no further mischief to the State, and proposes to watch their movements and make them accountable to all California for their acts respecting the Oakland waterfront. That water front is the key to the railroad situation. Without it no competing railroad can reach San Francisco through Oakland—the only satisfactory way of approach that wood admit of adequate terminal facilities. That strip from Emeryville to Brooklyn has a most peculiar history. It is a black history, too. It is a history in which greed and covetousness play a most striking part. It is an ugly history. Trickery, jobbery—jobbery, trickery repeat themselves over and over again. Arch Conspirator Carpentier pulled the strings and the little tin gods moved their arms and legs and made scratches with the pen as he willed. If Carpentier wanted anything he got it. If he wanted the town of Oakland incorporated he had it done. If he wanted a charter election it was ordered. If he wanted to carry the election he did it. If he wanted a grant of the whole water front he made his own terms for it. A little frame schoolhouse was not too small an equivalent for what is now ten millions of property. If he wanted to fix things so that he could be undisturbed in his stealings he had an ordinance passed so fixing them. If anybody tried to take the title of the water front or any part of it into court he got the little tin gods to send out for the attorney on the opposite side and call him off and squelch the litigants. How did he get his hold on Oakland affairs so firmly? He was a shrewd, sharp, pioneer lawyer, the brainiest man in Oakland in early days. When he began his stealings he counted noses in Oakland and found only 35 people to deal with. These people were all thinking about how to mind their own little affairs and make a living amid the oak trees. They did not see away ahead and discern the dim outlines of a second Brooklyn on the bay shore. But Carpentier did. He must have danced a Wild West jig of joy when he saw what he had sketched out made perfect by the finishing touch of the schoolhouse bargain. That was a dark day for Oakland. She sold her great water front, the one thing she had of most value to herself and to California, for a mess of pottage— a little schoolhouse. A picture of the insignificant building is presented in The Call to-day. It was the most costly schoolhouse ever erected in California, if not in the world. But about that document given to Carpentier by the first set of little tin gods? What was it? Arch Conspirator Carpentier says it was a grant— a feoffment to him forever. The only surviving member of the Board of Town Trustees that gave the document, whatever it was, says that it WAS a lease for 27 years. If that be the case, then the people of Oakland have been dispossessed of their property unlawfully for a very unlucky 13 years. Whether it be true or not, there is not a shadow of a doubt in the mind of any fairminded Oaklander that jobbery has deprived the city of its right in the waterfront property for a long time. But its rights remain. Nothing has invalidated them. The title to the property vests in the city, and the City Council is encouraging and fostering a rank fraud by not making some attempt to secure possession. The court that would not give the city possession would be a very good court to drop very suddenly into the broad, blue bay. It would be a railroad court—a Carpentier court. And that is the worst that could possibly be said of it. ----------------------------- A BAR TO PROGRESS. ----------------------------- Oakland’s Tin Gods Are Responsible for the Great Wrongs That Have Been Done. The Call’s efforts on behalf of the people of Oakland, and, in fact, of the whole State, to prod up the City Council of Oakland that it may do something for the people in the water-front matter and no longer stand in the way of California’s progress as a railroad State, have met with great approval across the bay. A good deal has been said by The Call of the iniquitous Carpentier deal, by which Oakland has been dispossessed of her valuable water front, but the half of it has not yet come out. It is a very ugly story, put it all together. It may be well to look into the history of the matter a little closer. A good deal of public interest centers upon the document by which Horace W. Carpentier obtained possession of the seven miles of water front. As a matter of fact it was not seven miles in length, as dealt with by the first Board of Town Trustees. They could give nobody the right to such an extent of territory, as the town limits were at that time more circumscribed than they are at present. Nobody knows how Carpentier managed to have his possessions stretched to cover the whole present water front, and that is a matter which will take further investigation. How did Carpentier get as much of the waterfront as the Town Trustees had to give away back in 1852? It was by virtue of the following ordinance: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Oakland do ordain as follows: Section 1. The exclusive right and privilege of conducting wharves, piers and docks at any point within the corporate limits of the town of Oakland, with the right of collecting wharfage and dockage at such rates as he may deem reasonable, is hereby granted and confirmed to Horace W. Carpentier and his legal representatives for the period of 37 years; provided that the said grantee or his representatives shall within six months provide a wharf at the foot of Main street at least 20 feet wide and extending towards deep water 15 feet beyond the present wharf at the foot of said street; that he or they shall within one year construct a wharf at the foot of F street or G street extending out to the boat channel; and also within 20 months another wharf at the foot of D street or E street, provided that 2 per cent of the receipts for wharfage shall be payable to the town of Oakland. Sec. 2. With a view the more speedily to carry out the intentions and purposes of the act of the Legislature, passed May 4, 1852, entitled an act to incorporate the town of Oakland and to provide for the construction of wharves thereat, in which certain property is granted and released to the town of Oakland, to facilitate the making of certain improvements; now, therefore, in consideration of the premises herein contained and of a certain obligation made by said Horace W. Carpentier with the town of Oakland, in which he undertakes to build for the said town a public schoolhouse, the water front of said town, that is to say the land lying within the limits of the town of Oakland, between high tide and ship channel, as described in said act, act together with all the right, title and interest of the town of Oakland therein, is hereby sold, granted and released into the said Horace W. Carpentier and to his assigns or legal representatives, with all the improvements, rights and interests thereunto belonging. Sec. 3. The president of the Board of Trustees is hereby charged with the duty of executing on behalf of the town of Oakland a grant and conveyance in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. A. MARIER, President of the Board of Trustees. F. K. SHATTUCK, Clerk of the Board of Trustees. May 27, 1852. All of which action was conceived in fraud, born in fraud and carried out in fraud. At the time Oakland was incorporated a census of the town would not have shown 40 persons as citizens. Carpentier, who was a sharp lawyer, went to the Legislature, then sitting at Benicia, and presented a petition for incorporation, together with an act he had drawn up for that purpose. The act was passed on May 4, 1852, and one of its special provisions was the granting and releasing of the lands “between high tide and ship channel” from the State to the town. Carpentier had a charter election called. It was held on the 9th of May. Only a few votes were cast, the people being surprised to learn that a town was to be made of Oakland, and not knowing or caring much how it was done and by whom. At the charter election Carpentier was elected one of the five Trustees. He did not qualify, as that would spoil the scheme he had hatched to gobble the water front. The Board of Trustees was organized on May 12. On the 17th, thirteen unlucky days after the incorporation, the trustees held their first business session, and passed the ordinance giving Carpentier control of the water front in consideration of the building of the schoolhouse. A Call reporter hunted up the schoolhouse yesterday. It is a little frame building on West street just south of Seventh, though it originally stood on Fourth and Clay streets. The rear portion of it is just as Carpentier built it, but the front has been remodeled and modernized. The building is used as a tenement. This is what Carpentier described in a communication to the Trustees as a “substantial, commodious schoolhouse.” It was erected in 1853, a little over a year after the water-front infamy was perpetrated. In that same year Carpentier sold a one-fourth interest in the water-front property to a New York relation. In 1854 Carpentier became the first Mayor of Oakland. He got back the one-fourth interest and conveyed the whole water front to Harriet N. Carpentier. Then the property was reconveyed to J. B. Watson. Then it came back to Carpentier again. Oakland kept growing and she acquired some very desirable citizens, among them some bright lawyers who studied Carpentier and studied him so carefully that he began to squirm. They made an attempt to get the waterfront property back into the hands of the city. This was a hard job. Carpentier fought them and kept on fighting. There was also other litigation and much excitement. At one time there was a small riot, but Carpentier and his friends still held the fort. It was then just as it is now—three or four individuals holding out against the whole of the rest of the population. The litigation hung fire until 1868. In that year the Oaklanders were raised up into the seventh heaven by the advent of the railroad. They thought that Oakland was going to be made another London by the putting down of some strips of iron. They lost their heads and gave up the fight. The Oakland Water Front Company was incorporated with a capital stock of $5,000,000. Its directors were H. W. Carpentier, E.R. Carpentier, Leland Stanford, John B. Felton, Lloyd Tevis and Samuel Merritt. To this company the water-front property was conveyed, and the railroad people gained control of it, never to lose their grip up to the present day. Various suits were brought against the Water Front Company and the corporation replied by a suit to quiet title, which, however, was never settled. The attitude of the City Council has been hostile to the city’s interests from the start. The Council is composed of 11 members. The railroad has run it ever since it laid its tracks into Oakland. There have been honest Councilmen who have worked hard for the people, but they have always been in the minority. ----------------------------- A SOLID EIGHT. ----------------------------- The City Councilmen Who Stand in the Way of Progress. The City Council of Oakland is composed of 11 members. The Mayor is not a member. It is a notorious fact that eight of these Councilmen are creatures of the railroad. They have put themselves on record as being in favor of nearly every Southern Pacific scheme that comes up. Against these are arrayed a lonely three. These are the men who have stood up for the rights of the people: J. E. Johnson, J. W. Nelson, Dr. George C. Pardee. They have shown by their actions and their votes that the railroad does not own them, and they have been supported by the independent press, particularly the Enquirer, which has done good work for the people. Here is the way Dr. Pardee talks and it is also the way he votes: “The water front belongs to the city of Oakland,” he said to a Call man yesterday, “and the city should get it back.” “Do you think it could be done?” “Yes, if a suit were begun and properly managed.” “Why do you think so?” “From the actions of the Water Front Company, if nothing else. It has never allowed a suit against it by the city to go into court.” “How could it keep such a suit out of court?” “Well, the City Council orders the suits dismissed. It was so when A. A. Cohen and Judge Hoge tried to help the city out in that way. A suit was commenced and the Council called a special afternoon meeting— a most unusual proceeding—and ordered it dismissed, which was done. If the railroad had any title, how did James G. Fair and company get possession of the narrow-gauge property on the water front, for which the Southern Pacific afterward paid a big sum?” Referring to the Water Front Company’s lack of enterprise in late years, Dr. Pardee said: “The Water Front Company never improves its property. It never lets any of it go out of its hands unless there is a string to it. It is a clog to the wheels of progress in Oakland. “I had it from a man known to serve the railroad in politics that the Southern Pacific Company controlled eight of the 11 members. ‘There’s no use of your fighting us,’ he said; ‘we’ve got eight of them on our side. You might as well fall in with the rest.’” “What did you tell him?” “That I would never permit myself to fall so low as to be bought by any corporation.” “The people of Oakland seemed used to railroad rule in the Council?” “Yes. It seemed strange to me at first that the Oakland citizens should look upon it as an unusual thing that there was a Councilman who would not sell himself to the railroad.” “Are you hopeful of victory in the cases brought to settle individual claims to waterfront property?” “Very. This Fortin case decision has strengthened the people’s side. It will greatly influence future decisions.” “You serve the railroad professionally, do you not?” “Yes; I am the official oculist and aurist of the hospital service of the company. But that does not keep me from doing my duty as a Councilman. The railroad people cannot buy me and they know it. “This is not going to be a short fight. The Water Front Company will go the whole length and will take the suit to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary. But the people will win in the end. I am convinced of it.” ----------------------------- IT IS TIDE LAND. ----------------------------- A Definition of the Term “Water-Front Property” in Oakland. “Water front,” as understood by the Oakland authorities, is tide land and bay bottom up to certain limits. It means not merely the land where the water is shallow, but, in the case of the estuary, all of the land under water at ordinary high tide, including a portion of the channel. At one time the Water Front Company set up a claim to the whole channel— it would claim the whole bay and the broad Pacific itself if it thought it could make a successful fight for them. The company wanted the water and bay-bottom between the stone retaining-walls built by the Government, and even the walls themselves. It is not modest. The grounds on which it rests this claim, which were as unstable as the muddy bay-bottom, were that the Government retaining walls were built on its property. It made a novel and characteristically liberal proposition to the city. It would donate a channel 400 feet wide between the retaining walls and keep the other 400 itself. Strange to say the City Council objected. There was, it seems, a limit to its capacity for jobbery. By the advice of City Attorney Vrooman it placed itself on a pedestal of virtue—11 pedestals in fact— and refused to consider the donation. There was no occasion for this pedestalizing. The Federal laws covered the case. Nobody could get inside those retaining walls with the corner stakes—not even the Oakland Water Front Company with the railroad to back it. There is now what is known as the “engineer’s channel line,” beyond which no one is permitted to construct a wharf or pier. The estuary and its bordering lands are officially diagrammed in a way that makes the description of them an easily understood matter. They are as follows: High land. Outer boundary of marsh (which is also the outer boundary of the water front). Marsh. High-tide line. Channel. Engineer’s channel line. Middle line of channel. Engineer’s channel line. Channel. High-tide line. Marsh. Outer boundary of marsh. High land. The Oakland Water Front Company, so far from “giving up” anything, keeps on adding to its territory. It controls seven miles of water front from Emeryville to Brooklyn, and has lately added considerable land on the Alameda shore. ----------------------------- NOT A JURY OF JUNIORS. ----------------------------- Names and Ages of the Men Who Decided the Fortin Case. It is an interesting fact to note that the ages of the jurors who decided the Fortin case were nearly all more than three-score years. The others only lacked a few years of it, and the average age was 63. Here is the list of names, with the age of each juror: James Lentil, 74; Newton Sewell, 70; Peter Baker, 54; P. C. Waldenbaugh, 53; M. Hilgard, 63; W. G. Tripp, 53; A. D. Pryal, 55; O. Button, 65; Philip Thorn, 60; W. E. Bryan, 71; H. C. McCune, 68; G. H. Tilley, 70. ----------------------------- FORTIN JUBILANT. ----------------------------- He Has Commenced the Erection of a Permanent Bulkhead. V. L. Fortin has commenced the erection of a permanent bulkhead on his waterfront property and will fill it in with 1500 loads of macadam, to be taken from Fourteenth street when the railroad company begins to break ground for its electric road. Fortin is jubilant over the verdict evicting C. B. Taylor from his land. He states that within a few days he will close a lease with a big firm, which proposes to erect a warehouse for carrying on a grain trade with Central and South America. John L. Davie is also pushing matters on his lease near Webster street and expects but little further trouble with the Water Front Company. Ben Morgan has volunteered his services to conduct a suit for the city to recover possession of the water front, taking no fee unless he succeeds. The “ring” in the City Council is now afraid to meet for the transaction of its regular business. The cause of this fear is due to the fact that the members of the “combine” are between two fires. The honest element of the city has demanded that the right of Oakland to its water front be asserted by granting the application made for a lease by it of certain piece of land on the front. This demand, however, is recognized by the “ring” as being especially distasteful to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company of Kentucky, alias the Water Front Company, and as the ringsters have a deep regard for the wishes of that company, they dare not grant the application. Hence the fear to meet. Tuesday night was the regular meeting night, but the frightened patriots secured a reprieve by staying away and preventing a quorum. The members who were present then adjourned to last night, whereupon the ring mustered in strength, and immediately after reading the minutes carried a motion to adjourn for a week, leaving a fortnight’s business untouched. What the end will be if these tactics are continued is not difficult to foresee. The Ordinance and Judiciary Committee met after the Council adjourned and Eagan’s application for a lease on the water front came up for consideration. In connection with it a letter was read from the City Attorney stating that the city could make a lease only at public auction to the highest bidder. The committee tabled the application. [illustrations] OAKLAND’S WATER FRONT. Diagram of the estuary. Carpentier’s schoolhouse. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1892-07-23 - S.F. Call, Vol. 72 #53, 8/1: ------------------------------------------------------------------- GRAB-ALL CARPENTIER Frauds Perpetuated by His Successors. BIG RENTS LOST TO OAKLAND. All Because She Does Not Claim and Take Her Own The Oakland Water Front Company Collects Rents on Property in Public Streets. How many thousands of dollars are kept from the Oakland City treasury every year by the Water Front Company? That would be an interesting thing to know. An expert in such matters is making a quiet investigation of the enormity of the steal. If he should ascertain the amount and should be kind enough to furnish it to the public, with such details as he can learn, it would make an interesting chapter in the history of the great water-front grab. The yearly steal lies chiefly in rents. The city ought to be collecting thousands of dollars a mouth from leases of waterfront property. How much does it actually collect? Nothing. And it lets the Oakland Water Front Company go on in peaceful possession of $10,000,000 worth of property, of which that company does not legally own one inch. Where can one find a greater steal than that? It may truly be called the greatest of all grabs by private companies in modern times. Grab-all Carpentier began it and the Oakland Water Front Company perpetuates it. The Call to-day shows a picture of a piece of property at the foot of Washington street, Oakland, on which there is a lumber-yard. That property is in Washington street, and it belongs to the city, whether any of the rest of the water front does or not. That street should be opened to the water front and should be made a public thoroughfare, unless the city should consent to lease it to some person or corporation to subserve the purposes of navigation and commerce. But that is only one. There are a dozen such streets, and the crocodiles of the creek have their clutches on them all, and whatever rental comes from that property goes into the big coffers at Fourth and Townsend streets. “Commodore” Woolsey is said to be going about Oakland telling people that J. L. Davie is offering to sell his lease to the Southern Pacific. Davie has two partners in this lease, J. M. Bassett and R. M. Fitzgerald, and to these gentlemen as well as to Davie a number of individuals, presumably agents of Huntington, have gone to risk the price value of the lease and improvements. To each and every one the answer has been that to the Southern Pacific or any known agent of that corporation no transfer of the property can or will be made. Davie, Bassett and Fitzgerald do not claim a foot of the land covered by their lease. They leased it from parties who have had peaceable possession for 30 years. They do not assume to say in whom the title is vested. They are ready to prove that the Southern Pacific has not and never had the shadow of a title to a single foot of Oakland’s water front. J. M. Bassett, who has given longer and more thorough study to the Carpentier title than any other man in the State, says the claim under which the Southern Pacific has held the water front is wholly and entirely void, because the action of the Board of Trustees of 1852, even if the members were honest, which it is now known three of the five were not, transferring the class of property in question from a municipal corporation to private ownership, was in direct opposition to all recognized rulings in courts of law and equity. The board could not transfer the power conferred upon it by the act of the Legislature to Carpentier or any other individual. Carpentier knew that he and accomplices tried to perpetrate a fraud and all his subsequent acts were so many attempts to cure or cover up this fraud. The lease was possible; the fee simple transfer impossible. The Southern Pacific has followed the same line. It has tried to heal what Carpentier confessed was a fraud by a series of frauds. It has bought Councilmen. It has bribed Mayors. It has corrupted courts. It has made lawyers forswear themselves. It has done all this in an effort to accomplish an impossibility. The courts have all affirmed that water front along navigable water cannot pass to private ownership. By changing the ordinance from a lease to a deed Carpentier defeated his lease had any one cared to nullify it. But the lease has expired. The deed could not be executed. This is the beginning and the end. The fact that three of the five Trustees were partners and could not therefore lawfully act in a proposition to lease the corporation’s property to themselves cuts no figure in the case. Carpentier induced the board to attempt what it had no legal power to perform. It could not transfer the corporation’s property to private hands. The ordinance of 1852 transferring the water front to Carpentier being void a subsequent ordinance confirming the void act has no force. The town corporation not having the original power to make the transfer could not ratify it. What an agent or Trustee has no power to do he cannot ratify. The power to ratify necessarily supposes the power to make the contract in the first instance. Confirmation cannot operate upon an act which is void in law; it merely confirms its infirmity. Defective execution of a law cannot be cured by subsequent legislation. A void proceeding cannot be made valid by a subsequent law of the Legislature. A Legislature cannot interpret what the law is or has been, but only what it shall be. It is the province of the courts to declare the law of an existing statute. Ratification to be effective must be made with the full knowledge of the facts relating to the act ratified. These are established principles of law which Mr. Bassett says fix the void and voidable character of the Southern Pacific’s title to the water front of Oakland. The company’s only standing in court is what it can obtain by the use of money. And on the 21st day of July, 1892, a representative of the Southern Pacific goes over to Oakland, meets by agreement the Board of Trade and wants to compromise. He talks for three hours about the unassailable character of the Southern Pacific title as filtered through Carpentier, but he wants to compromise. Did any one ever hear of the Southern Pacific letting go of a part of anything it had the remotest hopes of keeping? Title iron-bound, copper-fastened and brass-mounted, lease can’t be disputed, but the company wants to compromise! The Board of Trade very wisely listened, but said nothing. The Board of Trade knows, as everybody knows, that if the Southern Pacific had any faith in its title outside of a body of officials it can bribe, it would rush to court and hold every inch. The Board of Trade knows that the people of Oakland do not want a compromise. They want justice; they want a return of the whole of the stolen property; not a part of it. They do not want to compound a felony. The Southern Pacific boasts that it will keep the issue in the court for 15 years. Perhaps it may, possibly it may not. It may not own the courts more than one year. The people are about to resume control of the local government. J. G. Eastland, president of the Oakland Gaslight and Heat Company, said yesterday that his company had been falsely placed in the attitude of defiance to the people’s interests. As a matter of fact, he was not opposed to the people in the waterfront controversy. If the city’s title to the water front was a good one, it ought to have the property. As for the closed streets, Mr. Eastland said that if the City Council ordered them to be opened his company would cheerfully obey the dictum, but that he would hold that both Grove and Jefferson streets terminated at First street and did not run to the water front. “Our company has been in actual possession of its property lying south of First street in this city for the past 15 years,” said he. “By expending large sums of money it has reclaimed what was before untenable ground and has erected large and costly buildings on the land. We have in no way obstructed or interfered with the purposes for which the land was intended. “One of the conditions of our purchase was, it is true, that the land should not be used by a competing railroad, but I am told that the Water Front Company has stood ready for some time to strike out that clause in the deed; and it is likely that we shall have it done.” As a matter of fact the Oakland Gaslight Company and its doings cut no figure in the case. What the people want to remedy is that great fraud fixed upon them by Horace W. Carpentier and perpetrated by the railroad’s Water Front Company. “Carpentier,” says a New York correspondent, “has concluded that the warm weather is a little too much for him. He is now occupying his beautiful country seat at Galway, some 15 miles from Saratoga, where, reclining in his easy chair upon his broad portico, he can look upon the Green Mountains to his right, the Adirondacks to his left and distant Lake Champlain to the front, forgetting all about the Oakland water front and Alameda land litigation. General Carpentier has a select coterie of old friends around him.” SCENE AT THE FOOT OF WASHINGTON STREET, OAKLAND. (Property in a public thoroughfare, owned by the city, but the rent for which is collected by the Oakland Water-front Company.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-07-30 - S.F. Call, Vol. 74 #60, 10/1: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Did Not Testify. Horace W. Carpentier has not given any testimony before Commissioner Heacock, for the reason that the dismissal of the Southern Pacific suit against the Davie Company dispensed with any necessity for his testifying, so far as the Davie Company was concerned. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-08-09 - S.F. Call, Vol. 74 #70, 3/3: ------------------------------------------------------------------- IS ON THE STAND. Horace Carpentier Gives Testimony. “DID NOT DEDICATE IT.” He Denies That He Ever Gave the Foot of Broadway in Oakland to Public Use. “I did, I have and I will,” answered Horace W. Carpentier yesterday forenoon to a question of Attorney Harvey Brown, who was plying him with interrogatories in the interest of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the Oakland waterfront controversy. The testimony was being taken before Comissioner Heacock, as examiner, and all day long the familiar figure of Mr. Carpentier occupied a chair close to Stenographer Brown, and just a little behind W. Lair Hill. Mr. Hill and William Davis represented the city of Oakland, the latter meeting every question of Attorney Brown with an elaborate objection. The query of Harvey Brown which met with such a characteristic response was: “Please state whether you made any leases of property adjoining the premises and if so, if you have any of those leases with you, and will you produce them so that the court may determine whether any dedication was caused by those leases?” By Mr. Carpentier’s answer it was very evident that he was no novice in the giving of testimony. He produced the documents in the same cool, collected, deliberate manner as he gave his answer. Among the very few present Chairman Snell of the Oakland city water-front committee was conspicuously close to Attorney Brown. Prosaic — very prosaic — were the proceedings and Mr. Davis’ objections, necessarily frequent, began after a while to assume a rather stereotyped form. All his objections were based upon the grounds that the grant of the water-front property by the old Board of Trustees to Mr. Carpentier in 1852 was invalid, inasmuch as the property was of a public nature held in trust by the city authorities for the people and that therefore Mr. Carpentier could not show that he ever had any rightful title to the premises, and all his acts respecting the building of the wharf, the collection of wharfage and dockage, the leasing of the property and its final transfer to the railroad corporation were worthless as evidence. Mr. Brown’s questions were all quite leading and all that it seemed necessary for Mr. Carpentier to do was to respond in the affirmative as soon as Mr. Davis had finished stating his objection. Various certified copies of ordinances passed by the old Town Council of Oakland were put in evidence and also several leases executed by Mr. Carpentier to private parties. Of all the answers given by Mr. Carpentier, the most important, perhaps, was that immediately proceeding the one already given verbatim. Mr. Brown called his attention to an averment of the defendants to the effect that Mr. Carpentier had once dedicated the disputed property to public use for a highway. “I am not aware of any act of dedication,” said Mr. Carpentier. “I certainly never intended to dedicate it.” Briefly and substantially Mr. Carpentier’s evidence amounted to the following narrative: “My title did not depend upon the conveyance of President Amedee Marier of the Board of Trustees in May, 1852. The allegation that I derived my title solely from that source is not true. As sources of title other than this I had ordinances of the city, judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction and acts of the Legislature. I built the wharf and kept it up for twenty years. The land was low and generally covered with water at high or low tide. The water there was shallow, and in the estuary of San Antonio was a bar, upon which the flat-bottomed ferry-boats then running frequently grounded. John McCann, John P. Watson and Anson H. Jayne were in charge of the wharf in succession as my representatives. The water was so shallow that I once had to lie there more than a whole night myself, and finally jumped out of the boat and waded ashore. The property was worth about $10,000.” Mr. Carpentier also went into a history of the negotiations between himself, the railroad company, the late Senator Leland Stanford, John B. Felton, William J. Shaw, Dr. Merritt, Lloyd Tevis and the Oakland city authorities, in which he once offered the city water front to the railroad company for $200,000 to induce it to come into Oakland— negotiations which finally did secure the railroad for Oakland, notwithstanding Leland Stanford’s preference for Ravenswood. In the afternoon the ordinance of the old Town Council authorizing the convey grant of the water-front property to Mr. Carpentier was offered in evidence and received despite Mr. Davis’ objection. A certified copy of another ordinance, dated December 31, 1852, which City Clerk Shattuck had written in Mr. Carpentier’s presence also went through the same process, notwithstanding Mr. Davis’ point that the term of thirty-seven years for which the grant was made had expired. Among other papers placed in evidence were a certified copy of the act of the Legislature incorporating Oakland, one of the town ordinance accepting the Broadway wharf and the schoolhouse given by Mr. Carpentier, another of an ordinance passed in April, 1868, and the original leases of Mr. Carpentier, first to James R. Smith, next to Michael O’Grady and Matthew Rugsdale and finally to Artemas Davison. Carpentier Produces an Ordinance of the City of Oakland. [illustration] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-08-11 - S.F. Call, Vol. 74 #72, 6/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW IT GOT IT. The Railroad’s Title to Oakland’s Front. OLD CONTRACTS PRODUCED. Method by Which the Southern Pacific Obtained a Claim to the Property in Dispute. Of the 120 and more exhibits which Attorney Harvey Brown has informed Examiner Heacock that he will put in evidence in behalf of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company only four were offered and received yesterday. Mr. Davis for the city of Oakland objected to them, of course; but they went in all the same, after Horace W. Carpentier had identified the signatures of the late Leland Stanford and others attached to the documents. Mr. Carpentier obtained a little rest yesterday, there being no afternoon session, owing to the indisposition of Mr. Brown. The papers were in the nature of agreements between Mr. Carpentier, the Western Pacific Railroad Company, the Water Front Company and the city of Oakland in the spring of 1868, by which it was proposed to show how the railroad had acquired from Mr. Carpentier its title to the water front properly in dispute. The first was a promise signed by Leland Stanford to the effect that the Western Pacific Railroad Company would within eighteen months from February 23, 1868, lay its terminal tracks on the water front of Oakland, providing Horace W. Carpentier’s proposition to convey 900 acres of the city’s waterfront to Mr. Stanford and the latter’s associates were carried out. The next was the agreement itself between Mr. Stanford, for the Western Pacific Railroad Company, on the one hand, and Mr. Carpentier on the other. In consideration of 900 acres of water-front property “in a square or parallelogram form, but so as not to take more than a mile front on deep water, etc.,” the railroad company would establish its terminus there. For the remainder of the water front, except that in close proximity to the foot of Broadway, a company was to be formed, of which Messrs. Stanford, Carpentier and Tevis were to be the first trustees, and Mr. Stanford and his associates were to have an interest amounting to 40 per cent. This was signed by Messrs. Stanford and Carpentier, and dated February 23, 1868. Just one month later and the Oakland Water Front Company had been organized and came into possession of the city’s water front. Messrs. Stanford and Carpentier must have moved very rapidly, for the next document introduced was an agreement between the Western Pacific, Leland Stanford and the Oakland Water Front Company, the preamble of which set forth that on March 31, 1868, Mr. Carpentier had conveyed the whole water front to the Water Front Company, of which he was president, and Lloyd Tevis secretary. Mr. Stanford was the president of the railroad company, but to the contract he was individually a party as well. The burden of the document was that, whereas Mr. Carpentier had turned over the water front as stated, and the Water Front Company had conveyed about 500 acres of it to the railroad company, the railroad company pledged itself to establish its terminal tracks there within eighteen months from April 1, 1868, and put up a freight and passenger depot, and expend for improvements within three years not less than $500,000, or it would forfeit the land. Finally, the indenture was offered to which the Water Front Company, the Western Pacific, the city of Oakland, Mr. Carpentier, John B. Felton and Mr. Stanford were severally parties. It was a rather pretentious document, but it amounted to the following: The Water Front Company would convey, upon demand, to the city of Oakland all the property lying between the middle of Franklin street and the easterly line of Webster, and extending out to a line parallel with First street, and 200 feet southerly from Broadway wharf, with the right to collect wharfage, dockage and tolls therein. The same company would “designate and dedicate, as a navigable water course for public use, the channel of San Antonio Creek, from Ship Channel to the town of San Antonio, to a width of not less than 200 feet over the shallow water at the bar, and 300 feet wide above that place, subject to, and reserving the right, however, to build bridges across said channel, with suitable draws.” It would also issue to Horace W. Carpentier 20,000 shares of its capital stock; to John B. Felton, 5000 shares, and to Leland Stanford the remaining 20,000 shares. It further agreed to authorize the city of Oakland or other parties to construct a dam above the Oakland bridge across the estuary of San Antonio, lying between Oakland and Clinton, so as to retain the water and keep the land above submerged to high-tide mark for the use of the owners of the adjoining lands and the public. From the railroad’s point of view the most important element in this contract was that all the parties agreed to the Western Pacific proceeding to selects its 500 acres of waterfront in strips 100 feet wide for its tracks, within three months. It was not, however, to have more than a half-mile frontage on Ship Channel. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-08-16 - Los Angeles Herald, Vol. 40 #127, 4/2: ------------------------------------------------------------------- A MAN WITH A HISTORY. The litigation between the city of Oakland and the Southern Pacific company about the title to the water front of that city, has brought into public view, after a retirement of a great many years, a very notable personage. H. W. Carpentier is now an old man, and has become a resident of New York. During the 50s, 60s and part of the 70s, no man in California was better known, and but few men had cut a wider swathe in the field of success in great business operations. His schemes were of the gigantic order, and his ability to carry them out was correspondingly large. As early as 1852 his attention was drawn to the Peralta ranch, which included the site upon which Oakland was subsequently built. He saw a great future for Oakland, and he bought lands from the Peraltas. At that time there were a few houses at the embarcadero, at the head of San Antonio creek, where the foot of Broadway now is. The place grew, and Carpentier had his eye upon the fine water frontage as something that would be very valuable in the course of time. He proposed to the trustees of the town to build a public school house, if they would convey to him the land forming the water frontage. They accepted his proposition, and Carpentier built a school house which could be lost in one of the fine class rooms of the present high school of Oakland. He had his title confirmed by the legislature, and procured a number of other muniments of title from the city, and had successive acts of the legislature passed confirming all that the trustees had done to place in him the ownership of the city front. Mr. Carpentier thus became the great toll-taker at the water gate of Oakland. He built several wharves, and was interested in the lines of ferry-boats plying between that city and San Francisco. But to be the boss of a minor city and to handle its great affairs was only byplay for an intellect like that of Carpentier. He became the chief owner of the Alta Telegraph company, the pioneer of telegraph lines in California. That company had wires to Sacramento, Marysville and Placerville, and was reaching out to other cities. When the war broke out, he sold his stock, which included that of James L. Street, a successful builder of telegraph lines, to the corporation which was then looming up at the east, and afterwards became the Western Union Telegraph company. He and Street then entered into a contract with the eastern company to extend the California line across the mountains and plains to connection with the western line of the New York company. Street took charge of the work of building the overland line, and carried the enterprise out to a finish. Street drew out in 1864 with a million or so ahead, whilst Carpentier had realized much greater returns from the deal. As a natural outcome of building the overland telegraph, the celebrated pony express was organized to carry dispatches and letters between the ends of the wires as they approached each other. Battles were being fought every day in the south, and the interest in getting the earliest news was intense on this coast. Carpentier was interested in both the means of rapid transit of news and letters and coined money out of the enterprises. When he retired from business in 1872 he must have been one of the richest men in the state. There were few of the great money-making corporations on this coast in which he was not interested, and he was the founder and moving spirit in most of them. Aa a speculator he was so shrewd, calculating and successful, that it was only necessary for it to be known that Horace Carpentier was in a new enterprise for it to attract the attention and the money of capitalists. The Oakland reporters now speak of him as a little old man, feeble, nervous and retiring. When in his palmy days, Carpentier was active, agile, wide awake, and had an eye as keen and sharp as a hawk's, but with a sinister cast in it. He was a college graduate, had been admitted to the bar, and outside of John B. Fulton had no peer in California for the width and depth of his learning. He was a fine conversationalist and a very entertaining gentleman. But as a business man he was sharp as lightning and as unscrupulous as he was foxy. To those who only knew him in his prime, his description as he appeared the other day on the witness stand, as a little feeble old man, with a stare of vacancy in his eyes, conveys anything but the idea of the daring and tireless H. W. Carpentier of three decades ago. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-09-14 - S.F. Call, Vol. 74 #106, 3/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE BROADWAY WHARF. Early Settlers Testify to Carpentier’s Occupancy. More testimony was taken yesterday forenoon before Examiner Heacock in the Oakland waterfront case brought by the Southern Pacific to enjoin Mayor Pardee and the other city officials. The statements of Captain John McKenzie of the ferry-steamer San Rafael, Captain W. A. Warner and Rufus P. Barnett were received. During the years 1858 and 1859 Captain McKenzie ran the steamer Clinton, he said, between San Francisco and Oakland, and afterward the Contra Costa, and at that time Horace W. Carpentier was the recognized owner of the wharf. Captain W. A. Warner had been variously employed by the Contra Costa Navigation Company from 1857 to 1874, and eventually became its superintendent and then manager. He also testified to Carpentier’s ownership of the wharf. The bar there gave vessels some trouble, and considerable dredging had to be done. The statements of Mr. Barnett were confined principally to the matter of dredging, he having had charge of the railroad company’s dredgers. He drove piles, he said, for the company’s wharf in 1871 at Broadway. Another continuance for a week was taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1893-09-21 - S.F. Call, Vol. 74 #113, 9/1: ------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE TESTIMONY TAKEN. Southern Pacific Affiants Make Statements. More evidence was taken in the Oakland water-front case yesterday, in which the Southern Pacific seeks to enjoin Mayor Pardee and the other city officials of Oakland. Captain Harry N. Morse, who has known Horace W. Carpentier since 1854, was the first one to have his testimony taken. His statement was to the effect that the wharf was built by Carpentier, and that persons using it were required to pay dockage. Ex-Mayor F. K. Shattuck, who in early days ran a livery stable there, followed, and E. H. Woolsey, agent of the Oakland Water-front Company, came next. Both these gentlemen remembered the wharf as belonging to Carpentier in the ’50’s. The latter had been engaged in teaming, and was also in the oyster business. He submitted a pencil diagram of the wharf. The last witness for the day was Captain R. P. Burnett, who was simply recalled to give some measurements of the premises, which he had made. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1894-03-01 - S.F. Call, Vol. 75 #91, 3/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ON A SICK-BED. Horace Carpentier Gives Some Testimony. Attorneys Swelter in a Sickroom to Obtain the Deposition of the Capitalist. “It’s pretty hot here,” remarked Attorney John E. Foulds, yesterday afternoon, as he listened to his colleague, A. A. Moore, examining Horace W. Carpentier, the capitalist, in his apartments at the Palace Hotel, and as he said it the handsome attorney wiped several globules of perspiration from his massive and corrugated brow. Horace W. Carpentier, whose name has been more or less before the public of late in connection with the coming marriage of his ward, Miss Maude Burke, with Prince Poniatowski, is an important witness for the Southern Pacific Company in their suit now pending in the courts against the city of Oakland to quiet title to the Oakland water front. Mr. Carpentier has been too ill to attend court, and the retaking of his testimony on certain points has been postponed from time to time, until at last it was decided to take a deposition in his sick-chamber. Last Friday United States Commissioner Heacock in the capacity of examiner attended with the various attorneys, but Mr. Carpentier was too ill to talk, and the matter was continued until yesterday afternoon. At 2 o’clock Commissioner Heacock appeared on the scene, accompanied by Attorneys John E. Foulds, J. C. Martin and A. A. Moore, for the railroad, while William Lair Hill and E. J. Pringle appeared for the city of Oakland. Mr. Carpentier sat up to undergo the examination at first, but soon asked permission of the Commissioner to lie down, which being readily granted, he piled the pillows up under his head and answered questions put to him in that position, while his visitors sweltered in the great heat of the chamber, which had a roaring fire. All the proceedings were interrupted by the abrupt entrance of the future Princess Poniatowski, who deftly arranged the pillows under her guardian’s head, and then, after hurriedly glancing at the assembled limbs of the law as she might at a cage of wild animals, disappeared as abruptly as she came. When Mr. Moore asked the witness his age and occupation, Mr. Carpentier answered curtly: “I will not go over all that stuff again. I went over it last summer, and now, sick as I am, l am not going to run the risk of my life to rethrash old straw. I will not go over it without a special order of court. I am not well enough.” For a moment the attorneys were staggered, and then Mr. Moore replied: “It won’t take more than twenty minutes, Mr. Carpentier. We wish to clear up some points, that’s all. We will not go over the old ground.” “l am not going to answer questions I have answered before,” retorted Carpentier. “I will go on with the examination, but not go over it. If you want to ask me new questions, go on.” Then Mr. Moore questioned the sick man as to his ownership originally of Main wharf at the foot of Broadway, Oakland. The questions all tended to bring out the point that Mr. Carpentier had never given the public any rights to the wharf. He gave a lift of the wharfingers employed, and testified to the depth of water there which permitted steamers of light draught and other craft to dock there. He said his title to the property had never been questioned. “Did you ever give the public any rights to the property?” was asked. “No, sir. I never did.” “Did you ever intend to give the public any rights to it?” “I can only answer that question by saying no,” replied the witness slowly. The questions were nearly all objected to by E. J. Pringle on behalf of the city on the ground of their irrelevancy and some on the ground that their answers would state conclusions of law. The whole examination took little more than fifty minutes, and at the end Attorneys Pringle and Hill retired to consult. On returning they said they would not ask any questions. Attorney Martin asked the city’s counsel whether they were willing to stipulate that the testimony could be used in certain suits growing out of the main suit. They refused on the ground of not caring to accept the responsibility in the absence of their associate. They agreed, however, to the reading and signing of the deposition by the witness. Mr. Carpentier Interrogated. [illustration] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1895-05-21 - S.F. Call, Vol. 77 #162, 6/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STANFORD ESTATE. A Big Claim Against It Withdrawn by H. W. Carpentier and Mrs. M. H. Williamson. In the matter of the estate of Leland Stanford, the claim of Maria Hall Williamson for $50,000 and interest and the claim of Horace W. Carpentier for $350,000 and interest, both of which were allowed and approved by the executors on May 28, 1894, and afterward approved by the court, have been ordered withdrawn. These were claims on promissory notes and are the last against the estate excepting the Government claim of $15,000,000. The consideration of the notes is not made public in the transaction, but it is evident that the obligation has merely been transferred. The release was ordered in accordance with the following telegrams. H. W. Carpentier, 108 East Seventeenth Street, New York: Understand new notes have been signed by all parties to your satisfaction. Will you please instruct your attorney here by wire to withdraw claims against the Stanford estate immediately? Answer. RUSSELL J. WILSON. NEW YORK, May 17. Mrs. Jane Stanford, San Francisco: Mr. Crocker has signed the Carpentier notes this morning. THOMAS M. HUBBARD. NEW YORK, May 20. George Leviston, 508 California Street: Please see Wilson and withdraw claims of Maria H. Williamson and myself against the Leland Stanford estate. H. W. CARPENTIER. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1896-04-01 - S.F. Call, Vol. 79 #123, 13/3: ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTING AMONG BROADWAY RUINS Carpentier’s Old Trustee-Room Destroyed by the Fire. RELICS ARE DEMOLISHED In One of the Burned Houses Oakland’s Water Front Was Stolen. HISTORY OF DU BOIS PLACE. It Was Built Many Years Ago in the Days When the City Lived on the Front. Oakland Office San Francisco Call, 908 Broadway, March 31. The ruins of last night’s big fire were a scene of great interest to-day. Old-timers went down to the water front to revel in the memories of old times that the wreck of the Du Bois place revived, and the young folks came in droves because it was reported that there was gold among the ruins and they hoped to find it. In the hall over the Du Bois place met the first Board of Trustees of Oakland. The most historic event in connection with the annals of Oakland took place in that old house. In 1852 Horace Carpentier, Andrew Mhoon, Edward Adams, A. N. Burrell and Stephen Maurier met in that old building now in ruins and transacted the deed that transferred Oakland’s water front to Horace Carpentier, which act has kept this city in litigation for over twenty years. The Du Bois restaurant was one of the oldest places in the county. Thirty-six years ago Mr. and Mrs. Du Bois came to this coast and opened; a saloon, bowling alley and boathouse on the street that is now Broadway. In those days the house was at the water’s edge and the boats were kept in a part of the house. The Du Bois place soon became popular, and as nearly all Oakland was then south of what is now Seventh street it was the scene of many merry-makings. At that time it was not considered advisable to go north of the plaza, where the Hall of Records now stands, and Mrs. Du Bois says she can distinctly recall the terror the thought of going beyond that place inspired. All along the water front were houses and saloons, and all Oakland life and gayety was centered there. In those days the old Frenchman made money, but it went as easily as it came, and when he died nearly twenty years ago his wife was left penniless. The landing at Du Bois’ place was filled in and a wharf built, obliterating all traces of the former boating landing. The Du Bois house and the old portico courthouse stood side by side and grew old and dilapidated together. Mrs. Du Bois continued to live in her house, and it began to be filled with curios and relics brought by sea captains who used to patronize the place in the days of the old man. When the fire came last night Mrs. Du Bois was almost frantic in her efforts to save her treasures. She did not cease trying to collect them together till the flames drove her away. Then she first realized her danger. She rushed to the porch on the second floor, and, seizing the signboard, swung herself far out and landed in the street. Her keepsakes were neariy all destroyed in the flames, together with about $200 in cash. All this morning Mrs. Du Bois and her friends searched among the ruins, but only succeeded in recovering $50. The total loss of the fire is greater than was at first supposed. It is now thought that the losses will not be less than $30,000. RUINS LEFT BY THE FIRE AT BROADWAY AND WATER STREET, OAKLAND. [Sketched by a “Call” artist.] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1896-08-11 - S.F. Call, Vol. 80 #72, 10/3: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ITS WATER FRONT IN THE BALANCE. The Fate of Oakland’s Shore Line Soon to Be Settled. ARGUED ON APPEAL. The Cases Submitted to the Decision of the Supreme Court in Bank. POINTS MADE BY LAWYERS. Ex-Judge Garber, Attorney E. J. Pringle and Other Legal Lights Address the Bench. The Oakland water-front cases occupied the attention of the entire Supreme bench yesterday, the seven Justices sitting in bank during the whole day’s session. The arguments enued about 5 o’clock and the cases were then submitted. In the case of the People against the Oakland Water Front Company, on the application of the respondent, a space of fifteen days was allowed for the filing of a brief in reply. Ex-Judge Garber argued for the respondent in the case of the City of Oakland against the Water Front Company, and in the action of tne Oakland Water Front Company against Dameron and others Attorney H. S. Brown opened the argument for the appellant, being followed by Ben Morgan, Michael Mullaney and E. J. Pringle for the respondents, ex-Judge Garber speaking in reply. Mr. Pringle contended that the grant of the Oakland water front to Horace W. Carpentier in 1852, from which all the cases take their origin, did not convey to Carpentier a title to the property in fee simple. Carpentier was to hold the land in trust for the purpose of improving it and constructing wharves upon it. The grant, he said, was made for the purpose of facilitating the improvements contemplated and not in order to enrich Carpentier by conveying to him a valuable property. At most, a life estate was conveyed by the terms of the grant, the omission of the word “heirs,” for which the words “assigns and legal representatives” were substituted, being fatal to any claim of title in fee simple. “As to the contention of the learned counsel on the other side, to the effect that any irregularity in the first grant was remedied by the confirmatory grant of the year following,” continued Mr. Pringle, “the answer is simple. The grant of 1852 was plainly insufficient to establish an absolute title, and the confirmatory one of August 27, 1853, merely ratified it and confirmed it. It is a well-known maxim of common law that ‘qui confirmat nihil dat,’ in other words, that nothing is given by merely confirming and ratifying a gift already made.” “Do you mean to say,” interposed Justice McFarland, “that if you make a conveyance to me and after a year or so we come to the conclusion that that conveyance is insufficient, we cannot make another?” “Certainly not,” was Mr. Pringle’s response; “but if the second conveyance were merely a confirmation of the first, it could convey no more than the first purported to convey. Anyhow this confirmatory grant cannot mend matters. To be sure, after repeating the words of the original grant it goes on to say that the Oakland water front is conveyed to Carpentier ‘in fee simple, forever,’ but even in that additional clause no mention is made of ‘heirs.’ I know there is one case from the New Hampshire Reports cited in support of the contrary view; but it is in opposition to all other decisions in this country and in England. I contend that neither by the original grant nor by the confirmatory conveyance did Carpentier acquire a title in fee simple to the Oakland water front.” Ex-Judge Garber took the opposite view, contending that the conveyance and the confirmatory grant of the following year were sufficient to pass the title in fee simple to Carpentier. “And what is more,” he went on, “this conveyance was not a grant by the city of Oakland merely, but a State grant.” “How was that?” inquired one of the attorneys on the other side. “In 1861,” answered Mr. Garber, ‘‘the State Legislature confirmed all the ordinances of the city of Oakland.” “All the ordinances?” queried the former speaker. “The ordinances then,” rejoined Mr. Garber rather testily; “it amounts to the same thing.” “No one contends that by granting certain lands to Carpentier the city renounced its right to a water front. It could go beyond the limits assigned to Carpentier and build another water front of its own, but as to the conveyance of the land in question I hold its absolute title passed to Carpentier by the two conveyances from the city of Oakland by special ordinances and by the subsequent confirmation of those ordinances by the State.” The decision of the Supreme Court is looked for with much interest. It will probably be some time coming, as the reply briefs in the case of the people against the Oakland Water Front Company have yet to be filed. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1898-11-17 - S.F. Call, Vol. 84 #170, 3/2: ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARPENTIER’S LIFE HISTORY. Remarkable Record of R. H. McDonald’s Agent. OAKLAND, Nov. 16.— The central figure in the early history of Oakland was Horace W. Carpentier. He was its first Mayor, but prior to his election to that office he had laid the foundation for more than a generation of legislation and litigation by acquiring the immense water front of this city. In 1851 Carpentier made his appearance in Oakland. He came from San Francisco, where he had been practicing law — and with him came A. J. Moon and Edson Adams, a triumvirate whose influence on the city that has since grown up is manifest to this day. At that time the San Antonio redwoods were resounding to the noise of hundreds of axes and tens of sawmills and pits. These men saw at once that an immense fortune could easily be made by acquiring vast tracts of land. They started in to acquire it and were so successful that they soon “owned the town”— not figuratively but literally. Moon and Adams have long since gone to their last account. Carpentier soon went into business and on August 4, 1851, it is recorded that the Court of Sessions of Contra Costa (now Alameda) County granted a license to H. W. Carpentier and A. Moon to run a ferry “from Contra Costa in the Township of San Antonio to the city of San Francisco,” the tariff being fixed as follows: For one person, $1; for one horse, $3: for one wagon, $3; for one two-horse wagon, $5; for neat cattle, per head, $3; for each hundredweight, 50 cents; for each sheep, $1; for each hog, $1. This little ferry which was the first transportation monopoly in the State was such a success that Mr. Carpentier decided to have another monopoly. He sent to the court the following proposition: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, June 6, 1853. I hereby propose to complete the bridge across the creek known as San Antonio slough, opposite the residence of Messrs. Patton, on the following terms: The bridge shall be commenced forthwith and finished with expedition. I will charge and receive to my own use tolls at the following rates, to wit: Each footman, 12 cents; horses, cattle, etc., each 25 cents; vehicle drawn by one or two animals, 50 cents, and other things in like proportion. Said bridge shall be free from taxation or assessment. I will surrender said bridge to the county, to be made a free bridge and to be used only as a bridge, at any time within twelve months on their payment to me of the original cost of its construction, together with Interest thereon at 3 per cent per month. It shall be finished from bank to bank. This proposition to be binding on its acceptance by the Court of Sessions of Contra Costa County. H. W. CARPENTIER. The proposition was accepted, and the first Twelfth-street bridge was built. The two monopolies had a twistlike effect on Carpentier, and he longed to own the harbor as he practically did the town. To do this it would be necessary that the Legislature pass a bill allowing the incorporation of the town of Oakland. Carpentier, as an Assemblyman, would have no difficulty in getting such a bill passed, so he set about having himself elected to the Legislature. The election was held on March 26, 1853, and the returns should make a modern political manipulator blush. The candidates were Horace W. Carpentier of Oakland, Robert S. Farrelly of “Squatterville” or San Lorenzo, and B. R. Holliday of Martinez. The election was subsequently contested in the Assembly, but it shows, not only an Idea of what the voting strength of the district was then, but also throws light upon the manner in which elections were carried on. The highest number of votes were polled by Mr. Carpentier, against which Mr. Farrelly protested on the ground of fraud, upon which plaint a certificate of election was refused to Mr. Carpentier by the County Clerk, and the matter handed over to be unraveled by the committee on elections of the Legislature. Mr. Carpentier claimed 519 votes, Mr. Farrelly 254 and Mr. Holliday 192 thus showing a majority of 73 votes in favor of the first named. S. J. Clark, attorney for Mr. Farrelly, presented various grounds of objection, and forcibly signified fraud on the part of Mr. Carpentier, as well as collusion on the part of the Board of Judges, inspectors and clerks of Contra Costa and Oakland Township. In the examination it was ascertained that the whole number of votes cast in the township was 377, while, according to the testimony of the agent who took the census of the township but ten short weeks before, there were only 130 votes within its limits— a rather unprecedented influx of people in so limited a space of time. It was also declared that it took almost two hours to count the Carpentier tickets, which lay in a compact yellow mass at the top of the box, ere any white ones, representing Farrelly, were reached, and yet three of the last voters who cast their ballots at sundown swore positively that they had voted white tickets for Farrelly. An affidavit was made by a man named Ford that he crossed on the ferry boat to San Francisco on the day of the election and there found a man called Gilman who said he had thirty-seven workmen for his bridge on board and was arranging for their fare. These men, or some of them, Ford afterward recognized voting at the polls, while he heard one of them say that he had voted seven times. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, however, took the view that Mr. Carpentier was duly elected and made affidavits to that end, and a majority of four to six of the Committee on Elections were of the like opinion, and reported in favor of his taking his seat, in which he was duly confirmed, and sworn in April 11, 1853. Carpentier had at this time a friend in the well known David C. Broderick, through whose influence he obtained the position of enrolling clerk of the Senate, which enabled him to advance various schemes, among others the incorporation of the town of Oakland which took place in 1852. The first Board of Trustees consisted of A. W. Burrell, A. J. Moon, Edson Adams, A. Marrier and H. W. Carpentier. The latter, however, did not qualify. Belonging to the town were about 10,000 acres of overflowed land known as the water front. In consideration of building a small schoolhouse and erecting a wharf the whole of this magnificent property was bartered away to Carpentier by his associates. It is only right to mention, however, that the incorporation of the town was an act unknown to the rest of the squatters, who woke up one morning to find that such an act had been passed. The Governor (Bigler) was warned not to sign the bill, and he at first refused to do so, but like many other functionaries, arguments more convincing than words were found to prevail with him and he changed his mind in the matter. Marrier was president of the Board of Town Trustees, and at first refused to sign the deed. Carpentier told him that he only wanted to hold the land in trust for the town, so that a succeeding board could not make another disposition. It is to be remembered that all this time not an individual any more than the sham town government had a right to a single acre of the land. Other parties were negotiating with the rightful owner for the purchase of it, and in case they succeeded the whole plot might be broken up. This was the argument used by Carpentier to Marrier, when he finally consented to sign the deed, the former solemnly promising him that he would deed back the property to the town so soon as all danger was passed. Carpentier forgot to do this, and there is in existence an affidavit of Andrew Marrier, who died years ago, solemnly affirming this statement. March 25, 1854, Oakland was incorporated as a city, and Horace W. Carpentier was elected its first Mayor, by the same tactics as he had invariably pursued in all his undertakings. Three hundred and sixty-eight votes were cast at this election, but votes, then, were no indication of the number of settlers, and it is certain that there was no such number of legal voters in the town. The Council elected in 1854 was “antiCarpentier,” and caused proceedings to be instituted to recover the water front — the giving away of which was, no doubt, a deep laid plot in the first place, concocted by Carpentier when he incorporated the place into a town. The litigation which followed was persistent but unavailing. It has been frequently said that Carpentier did not know the value of the water front and that he was unaware of the magnitude of what he was doing. This is not true, for immediately after the signing of the deed Carpentier sold one-quarter of the water front to E. R. Carpentier for $2850, and in August, 1854, while Mayor of this city, he sold the remainder to Harriet N. Carpentier for $60,000. In August, 1855, John B. Watson sold the entire water front to Harriet Carpentier, though how it passed into the hands of Watson is a profound mystery, as there is no record to divulge the secret. In March, 1868, there sprung into existence the celebrated Water Front Company. Carpentier, at this time, had again secured the ownership of the water front and organized a company of which the officers were H. W. Carpentier, president; Lloyd Tevis, treasurer; E. H. Miller, secretary; Leland Stanford, John B. Felton and Samuel Merritt. Then began that long fight in the Legislature and the courts for the possession of the water front. It is now valued at $11,000,000 and the final stage of the litigation is now in progress in Judge Ogden’s courtroom. When the case is finished the successors to Carpentier will have about $8,000,000 worth of the whole. The methods employed by Carpentier in divesting Don Domingo Peralta of his vast possessions in what is now Oakland, and how he acquired title to these lands, are best shown by the testimony of the old Castilian Peralta, given over thirty years ago in the United States District Court before Judge Hoffman in a suit brought by Peralta for the purpose of setting aside certain deeds executed and delivered to Carpentier. Peralta was illiterate, and aside from the sweet-accented Castilian tongue, he had no language to express his thoughts. He was all too kind-hearted and an easy prey for the keen ingenuity and legal skill of the unscrupulous Carpentier, who was as well versed in the Spanish and Latin languages as in the vernacular. Moreover, he was possessed of dramatic talent of no mediocre degree, and, according to Domingo Peralta’s testimony — if some of his present living acquaintances remember rightly — Carpentier had impressed him with the idea that at one time he had been a priest. Mr. Carpentier, furthermore, agreed to set apart an evening when he would visit the casa Peralta and in the family circle, recite the rosary, and in other ways offer up supplications. The evening came and with it Carpentier. As “Father” Carpentier knelt upon the rustic floor, surrounded by Don and Doña Peralta, their sons, Senors Ramon, Luis and Miguel, and their two daughters, Doña Peralta requested Luis to step to her room and bring forth a soft cushion upon which the “priest” might secure more comfort for his knees. At this act of kindly consideration Carpentier became indignant. He arose in dignity, and, snatching the pillow, cast it aside, proclaiming that “the floor of Don Domingo Peralta’s home is good enough for any good Christian to kneel upon.” Because of these and many other similar traits of true Christian spirit Don Domingo held implicit confidence in Carpentier. He made the feigning “priest” his confidential agent, and when he signed the deeds — as best he could — conveying to Carpentier nearly the whole of Peralta grant from the estuary of San Antonio to the east shore of the bay, he believed and was led to believe that he was simply signing some power of attorney or other document granting to his friend a certain necessary authority in connection with the transaction of his business. Thus Don Domingo lost the possessions which his aged father once standing on the top of one of the Contra Costa hills pointed out to him as his legacy, and even to this day when Luis Peralta, Domingo’s son, traverses Oakland he is often prompted almost to ask permission to walk through the streets of the city which once his father owned and which he claims was taken from him by fraud. These facts are still fresh in the memory of Pontio Garcia, who still lives at Temescal, and who was Domingo’s brother-in-law, and a cousin of the famous Three-fingered Jack. Victor Castro, one of the oldest Castilians residing in this county, and still living beyond Berkeley, remembers the incidents, and they have been frequently retold by Luis Peralta. About twenty years ago H. W. Carpentier shook the dust of Oakland from his feet and with his riches went to New York, where he has since resided. He was in this State in August, 1893, and was subpoenaed, to make a deposition in the cases on trial in the Circuit Court over the Broadway riots. He became very impatient and went East before the deposition was completed, vowing he would never return. He owns a fine house on Third street, but it is rented for a nominal sum merely to keep it in repair, there being an idea prevalent that he might some day return and close his career amid the scenes of his many ventures. The little schoolhouse given by Carpentier to the city is still standing. It is to be found at Third and Market streets, a positive monument to the most gigantic fraud ever planned and carried out in this State, and beside which the wrecking of the Pacific Bank is but a triviality. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1902-03-29 - S.F. Call, Vol. 87 #119, 3/6: ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFINES TITLE TO WATER FRONT Judge Ogden’s Findings Close Tide Land Litigation. Corporation Gets Everything but Ends of Dedicated Thoroughfares. Oakland Office San Francisco Call, 1118 Broadway, March 28. The title to water front property that has been in dispute for many years was definitely fixed to-day when Judge Ogden filed his findings in the famous litigation between the City of Oakland and the Oakland Water Front Company. These findings give the Water Front Company all of the water front lands of Oakland between high and low water, extending from the arm of the estuary leading from Lake Merritt to the northern boundary of the city, excepting only the extensions of three streets—Broadway, Washington and Webster. In the original trial of the suit between the city and the corporation Judge Ogden decided that the lands vested in the city, basing his decision on a statute of the Federal Government, which forbids a State alienating its navigable waters. The State Supreme Court reversed this decision and gave the lands to the corporation, with the exception of lands extending into the waters from dedicated streets. Judge Ogden was instructed by the higher court to define these dedicated streets, but all he could find were the three named. They were reserved by the city in the ordinance conveying the water front to Horace Carpentier in 1852. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1902-09-06 - S.F. Call, Vol. 87 #98, 9/2: ------------------------------------------------------------------- OAKLAND’S FIRST MAYOR ON STAND Horace Carpentier Reappears in Answer to Summons. Oakland Office San Francisco Call, 1118 Broadway, Sept. 5. Horace Carpentier, Oakland’s first Mayor, who secured from the city in return for a frame schoolhouse nearly all the city’s water front, was the principal witness in probating the will of Mrs. Alice Waite, formerly a wealthy woman of New York, in Judge Ellsworth’s court to-day. Despite his four-score years the ex-Mayor was the picture of health. His skin was ruddy with a healthy glow, the effect of which was heightened by the financier’s clerical garb and his snowy white hair and beard. It was the first time in years that Oakland’s venerable first Mayor has made his appearance in this city. Carpentier was called upon to testify to the signature of Mrs. Waite’s will, which disposes of property valued at $500,000. The ex-Mayor, together with M. H. Walker and Caroline B. Crocker, witnessed the execution of the will in New York, in March, 1900. The will was admitted to probate. The husband was named as executor, but declined to act. Attorney George Levingston of San Francisco, at the request of the husband, was appointed executor, with bonds fixed at $500,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1908-01-24 - S.F. Call, Vol. 103 #55, 4/5: ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERALTA HEIRS WILL TRY AGAIN Reopen Fight for Land on Which Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda Stand Base Their New Claim Upon a Paragraph Found in an Old Will OAKLAND, Jan. 23.— The federal authorities will be called upon within a few weeks to pass upon alleged new evidence directly affecting the ownership of the land upon which Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda and adjacent towns are located. The initiative will be taken by heirs of Urvin and Tom Bird, who purchased in 1867 the claims of the Peralta estate to the extensive grants of land made by Pablo Vicente de Sola, governor of California, by authority of the king of Spain, to Luis Peralta in 1820. As one of the final acts in completing the evidence, the will of Jose Domingo Peralta, a son of Luis, was photographed today in the office of the county clerk by A. K. Muir of Sacramento and P. A. Davidson, who have been preparing the case. Especial attention was paid to the procuring of an accurate reproduction of a paragraph in the will which asserted that Horace Carpentier had lapsed in his agreement with Peralta. This, in Peralta’s opinion, invalidated Carpentier’s claim to ranchos San Ramon and San Emido. Translated, the paragraph is as follows: I have two contracts with Carpentier in regard to the titles of San Ramon and San Emido, which he has not performed for the space of 13 years and 6 months, for which he may by divine and human law be considered without any right whatever.” In view of the fact that many titles to property in this district, after passing from the Peraltas, came through Carpentier, it is hoped by attacking his accession to show that the land still belongs to the heirs and assignees of the old Spanish family. Fraud and chicanery will be alleged in attacking the Carpentier rights. Muir is an engineer who has been studying the question for years. He is regarded as an authority on the Oakland water front situation, and in his opinion Carpentier was far from being honest In his dealings. Davidson is one of the Bird heirs. The hardest fight is expected to occur in the land office in Washington, where the evidence will be first presented. An effort will be made to have the status of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, entered into by the American, Spanish and Mexican governments at the close of the Mexican war, determined. This treaty was believed to have insured the rights of land holders under Spanish grants, but afterward it appeared to have been superseded in effect by the squatters’ act passed by congress in 1850. Attorneys Asa V. Mendenhall, George W. Langan and J. W. Henderson have been retained at various times in the interests of the Bird claims. Attorney Henderson probably will present the case in Washington. This is a revival of old suits that have been before the United States courts and land office more than a score of times, in which the Peralta and Bird claimants have lost regularly. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1912-06-29 - S.F. Call, Vol. 112 #29, 30/4: ------------------------------------------------------------------- FORMER OWNER OF BIG WATER FRONT IS HERE H. W. Carpentier Visits California After Long Absence Horace W. Carpentier, who once held title to the entire water front of Oakland, is paying this section of the country a visit after many years’ absence. In the early days Carpentier acquired title to the water front through the consideration of building a school house and other public improvements. He afterward sold to the Southern Pacific, and the railroad held title until the Western Pacific fought its way by force through the courts for dockage on the bay. In the United States circuit court it was decided that the title held by Carpentier was invalid, and that neither the Southern Pacific nor the Western Pacific had any right to the lands. The Southern Pacific preferred not to carry the case to the supreme court of the United States. By an arrangement with the city of Oakland, to which the court awarded title, both railroads acquired water front rights, the city retaining a large frontage for a municipal harbor. Carpentier makes his home in New York. He is an aged man and is accompanied by a Chinese servant, Wah Jim, who is well known to the attaches of the old Palace hotel. Carpentier has large interests in northern California and will be here for several days.