« ForrigeFortsett »
but against other measures which aimed to improve harbor conditions at San Pedro.
The clash between Los Angeles and San Francisco over this issue, found its first open expression on February 15, when the so-called San Pedro Pilot bill (Senate Bill 874) came before the Senate for final passage.340 This measure repealed the law which fixed the pilots' fees for the ports of Wilmington and San Pedro. It was claimed that these fees were extortionate, that they placed an unjust burden upon the shipping of the two ports and imposed an unwarranted handicap upon the development of the harbors. On this ground, the Los Angeles delegation urged that Senate Bill 874, repealing the law under which this extortion was practiced, be passed.
When the measure came up for final passage, however, San Francisco was quick to the fore with objection. Welch of that city moved the measure be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. This action was taken.841
Senate Bill 874 remained in the Senate Judiciary
these views to the appropriate committees, and would request that you secure the publication of this communication in the Senate Journal. "THE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION of San Francisco. "M. H. ROBBINS, JR., President." This attitude was, however, condemned by other San Francisco interests. "The suggestion," said the San Francisco Chronicle, in discussing the matter, "that the State should intervene to prevent any other port from competing with us is humiliating. If San Francisco with all its natural advantages cries out for help against the competition of an artificial port most self-respecting persons would wish to move out of San Francisco."
340 Senate bill 445, the Los Angeles tide lands bill, had, however, already (Feb. 3) on its third reading been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.
341 The Los Angeles press was bitter in it denunciation of the course taken by San Francisco members. The Los Angeles Herald, for example, in its issue of Feb. 21. in an editorial article, "The Hand of the S. P.," said:
"Back of the move being made at Sacramento by Senator Wolfe and his associates from San Francisco to throttle the plans of Los Angeles for a great municipally-owned harbor
Committee until March 18, when, with tide land bills affecting the waterfronts of four centers of population, it was, under extraordinary circumstances, reported out with the recommendation that it be passed.
The re-referring of this bill to the Judiciary Committee, however, took the whole tide land controversy before that body. There it developed that San Diego and Oakland also had measures before the Legislature which granted those communities important State tide land properties, while San Francisco had proposed a bill
looms the sinister hand of the Southern Pacific Railroad. why not? It is true that the Southern Pacific has spent hundreds of thousands for terminal properties in San Francisco to dollars that it has spent in Los Angeles. Is it not to the interest of the S. P. to crush this plan fostered by the South that recently has thrown off the Herrin yoke? It is but natural that the big railroad corporation, always noted for discriminating against Los Angeles in favor of San Francisco, should wish to build up commerce where it has expended the most money, and take this commerce away from a city where the road's policy has been niggardly and where, in addition, the yoke of the road's political boss has been broken.
"Wherefore it behooves the people of Southern California to rise and thwart the plans of San Francisco legislators, representing as they do the old order of things-the Herrin ideaand by a mighty demonstration make the harbor of Los Angeles a municipal port. Los Angeles is a well-governed city. Under municipal control her harbor will be one of the greatest in the world, and this is the very thing the reactionaries at Sacramento are trying to prevent.'
Nor were the people of Los Angeles at all backward in charging that the Southern Pacific Company was back of the opposition to the bills.
"The real opponents of Los Angeles Harbor," insisted George Alexander, Mayor of that city, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the evening of Feb. 24, "is the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. All that we ask of this Legislature is that you give us permission to develop our harbor in a way that will bring the greatest good to the greatest number."
"I do not believe that this opposition comes from San Francisco," said Joseph Call, one of the best known authorities on railroad matters in the country. "I do not believe that San Francisco wants to bottle up our harbor. The real opposition comes from the railroads.
"It is a matter of common knowledge," Call continued, "that the Standard Oil controls the three great railroads to the Coast, the Southern Pacific, Western Pacific and Santa Fe. By concerted action they have steadily advanced rates. The only relief California can get will come through the development of the State's water fronts. That development the railroads will prevent if they
which granted to that city not only the tide lands, but all the extensive improvements which the State has made on the San Francisco waterfront, and which have cost upwards of $30,000,000.842
The Judiciary Committee authorized the appointing of a subcommittee to deal with all the tide land measures. This subcommittee consisted of Wolfe of San Francisco, Stetson and Tyrrell of Oakland, Hewitt of Los Angeles, Wright of San Diego, and Caminetti of Amador,342 the last named being the only member of the sub-committee whose district did not have a tide lands measure before the Legislature.848
At the time the subcommittee was appointed, the San Francisco and Los Angeles delegations were as far apart in the tide lands controversy as the poles. Alameda and San Diego were quietly awaiting the psychological moment to make a decisive move. And then came word to the San Francisco delegation, from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, to give Los Angeles what that city wanted.
As this order from the San Francisco Chamber of
342 Senate bill 1200. The measure reads as follows:
"The interest of the State of California in and to all those certain lands, wharves, buildings, docks, boats, dredgers, railroads, and any and all property, real, personal and mixed, together with all the improvements, rights, privileges, easements, appurtenances connected therewith or in any wise appertaining thereto now in the possession of the State of California, and under the jurisdiction and control of the State Board of Harbor Commissioners and situated in the City and County of San Francisco, is hereby granted to the City and County of San Francisco."
342a Thompson of Los Angeles later on became a member of this sub-committee.
343 Senator Caminetti proposed that. the State institute legal proceedings-as the city of Los Angeles in the name of the State had done at San Pedro-to recover tide lands at San Diego, Oakland, Eureka and such other points as might be determined, where the properties had passed into the hands of private interests. Eventually, this will unquestionably be done.
Commerce was the reverse of what the San Francisco Merchants' Association was insisting upon, the San Francisco legislative delegations found the situation confusing.
A meeting of San Francisco business men and legislators was accordingly held at the rooms of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. At that meeting, it developed that representatives of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce had two years before entered into a "gentlemen's agreement" with the commercial bodies of Los Angeles to support Los Angeles in its endeavor to get control of San Pedro Harbor, on condition that the Los Angeles commercial bodies assist in the defeat of the India Basin bonds, then pending before the State.
These India Basin bonds, it may be said, were for one of the most important harbor improvements at San Francisco ever undertaken. Outside of a few special interests San Francisco was and is practically a unit for the improvement. Although these special interests made an expensive campaign to defeat the India Basin bonds, the vote against the bonds in San Francisco was only 10,154, while the vote for them was 31,448.
The remainder of the State gave a substantial vote for the bonds, but at Los Angeles the vote was 30,839 against them, and only 5,552 for them.344 This adverse Los Angeles vote defeated the bonds. The Los Angeles
344 So important is this India Basin improvement for the best development of San Francisco, that in 1910 the India Basin bonds were for a second time submitted to the people. At this second submission, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce joined with the Merchants' Exchange and Merchants' Association of that city in urging their ratification. Although the special interests opposing the improvement expended, it is estimated, upward of $100,000 to defeat the bonds, while the combined commercial bodies spent less than $2000, the bonds were ratified, and the funds for the improvement made available.
commercial bodies certainly lived up to their part of the agreement.
When the time came to turn the San Pedro waterfront over to Los Angeles, the Los Angeles commercial bodies called upon the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to fulfill its part of the agreement.
At the San Francisco meeting, the Los Angeles people put it, in effect, in this way:
"A pledge was given us two years ago by your commercial organizations that if we aided in defeating the bonds of the India Basin Act, you would aid us in our endeavor to get control of our harbor when the time was ripe."
The San Francisco Merchants' Association denied that it was party to any such understanding. It developed that the pact had been made by members of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the Shipowners' Association. Nevertheless, it was contended that the members of the San Francisco delegation in the Legislature should abide by this agreement, made before they were elected, of which they had no knowledge, and which was predicated on a pledge given to members of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Shipowners' Association by the commercial bodies of a rival city, to do San Francisco a serious injury.
But the contention that the agreement should be kept prevailed. Word was sent members of the San Francisco legislative delegation to discontinue opposition to the Los Angeles tide lands measure.
Other motives may of course have governed them, but about this time, the opposition of the San Francisco