Biennial report of the Board of State Harbor Commissioners for (1916) (14589598848)

Identifier: biennialreportof1916cali_0 (find matches)
Title: Biennial report of the Board of State Harbor Commissioners for ..
Year: 1865 (1860s)
Authors: California. Board of State Harbor Commissioners for San Francisco Harbor
Subjects: California. Board of State Harbor Commissioners for San Francisco Harbor Harbors Waterfronts Shipping
Publisher: San Francisco : Winterburn & Co
Contributing Library: San Francisco Public Library
Digitizing Sponsor: California State Library Califa/LSTA Grant



Text Appearing Before Image:
1 ^ys^V:^ v^*^ ^^r-l^lte^M;--^^ Pier 42. North Side. REPORT OF BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COMMISSIONERS. 55 and repair work a few flat cars, but those now in use have proved inadequate to our requirements. I therefore recommend the prompt urchase of four new standard steel-frame flat cars. As regards additional motive power, my recommendation for the urchase of two more standard six-wheel switching locomotives is now a the hands of the board. I have also advised the purchase of a planer and a boring machineor installation in the Belt Railroad shop. With the addition of thisquipment, the necessity of calling upon railroad machine shops would•e obviated, as practically all locomotive repairs could be accomplishedV our own plant. F. E. Stev^art,Superintendent Belt Railroad. 56 REPORT OF BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COMMISSIONERS.
Text Appearing After Image:
PART IV. REPORT OF ATTORNEY 58 REPORT OF BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COMMISSIONERS. REPORT OF ATTORNEY. San Francisco, July 1, 1918.To the Honorable Board of State Harbor Commissioners. Gentlemen: My report from July 1, 1916, to July 1, 1918, is asfollows: I have drawn for the board thirty-three contracts, which wereexecuted and carried out, involving the sum of $1,771,342.05. This,however, does not include sums paid for oil, lumber, street cleaning andelectric light and power. I have rendered fifteen written opinions and innumerable oral ones. The following is the history of litigation during the period mentioned: 1. Acme Lumber Company vs. Daniel A. Ryan, members of theBoard of State Harbor Commissioners, etc., et al., an action in forcibleentry and detainer involving Potrero Nuevo Block No. 523. A right ofway over this block was granted in 1868 to the Western Pacific andSouthern Pacific railroad companies, but never used. The fee wasclaimed by the Southern Pacific Company. Judgment was f