The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-16
STILL AFTER THE EIGHT
K. NJ. Smith Files a New AC-
CuSation for lmpeaCh-
ment.
DIRECT CHARGES OF FRAUD.
The Word Extension" Relieves the
Market-Street Company Of the
Two Per Cent Condition.

Kire NJ. Smith yesterday filed in the SUI
perior Court second amended complaint
and accusation against and for the re-
moval of the Solid Eight of the Board of
Supervisors.
It recites the same facts as the original
complaint, but presents them on new lines.
In the former complaint the basis of the
action was the failure on the part of the
Solid Eight to recognize the application OF
the San Francisco and San Mateo Railroad
Company for a franchise out Sunnyside
avenue to Ingleside. This, it was charged,
was failure to perform official duties, the
question of revenue being an incident.
The new complaint and accusation is
based upon the duty of Supervisors to sell
property rights of the City for the highest
price obtainable.
The complaint relies upon the law Of
March %, 1898, relative to the sale Of fran
chises, which law provides its own penalty.
The facts are alleged in such manner to
show how the Solid Eight conspired to aid
the Market-street Railway Company to Sc
cure two franchises to IngleSlde under
their application for one, at the nominal
price of $500, excluding all other bidders
and under the gulse of an extension. to
an old franchise, leaving out the exactlon
Z
which is now made part of all franchises.
Two causes of action are presented In
which the same facts are .reclted. The
first is the violation of the law and the
second is IAN attempt" to violate the law.
AS will be rememb ered this law OF March
%, 1893, has an equal penalty Tor It's VIOLA
ton and its attempted violation.
The recitation of facts is much stronger
in this new complaint than in the old.
Stress is laid upon the fact that no street
railway franchises have been granted
within the past five years without. the
provision being inserted that per cent Of
the gross receipts be paid to the City, and
yet this franchise, or literally speaking,
two franchises, are here coupled together,
and, with the excuse that IL Is an "exten-
sion' of a previous franchise, this pro-
vision is not here eXacted; that the fran
chise has, however, been advertised and
all the forms followed, as provided in the
law of 1898, which by the way does not
mention such a thing as an extension.
The complaint recites:
That on the said 9Th day of July, 1895, the
said eight members, being majority and con-
trolling number thereof, and each OF them, did
willfully and unlawfully violate the said act
and with fraudulent intent and purpose TO
prevent any public competition against the
Market-stTeet Railway Company, corporation
in said City and County, and all and each OF
them did conspire and join together Tor ana IN
street Railway Company and against the public
interest, and all and each one OF them, to wit:
JOSEPH KING, Supervisor First Ward.
PETER A. SCULLY, Supervisor Second
Ward.
CHARLES e. BENJAMIN, Supervisor
Third Ward.
ALPH ONsE HIRsCH, Supervisor
Fourth Ward.
EDWARD C. HUGHES, Supervisor
CHRIS BUNKER, Supervisor Seventh
Ward.
ALFRED w. MORGENSTERN, Super
visor Ninth Ward.
EDWARD L. WAGNER, Supervisor
Twelfth Ward.
Did recognize an application made by the said
Market-street Railway Company Tor fran
chise to construct q street railroad over large
number of public streets in said City and
County, and each one of them did by his vote
on the said Sth day of July, 1898, at regular
open session in an open meeting OF the Board
of Supervisors, knowingly and unlawfully vote
for and cause 10 be advertised the said Market
street Railway Company's application for
franchise with conditions and restrictions in
it, own favor drafted and framed by order OF
salt Market-Street Railway Company with the
unlawful, corrupt and fraudulent object and
intention of defeating the purpose and spirit
of the law, and preventing any competition or
bidding whatever against 1t Tor the said iran
chise; and deponent alleges that the said
cuSeQ SUPERVISORS ana eacn one IQereOl, Dy MS
unlawful action as hereinbefore alleged, did
legislate for and vote in the interest and be-
half of the said Market-street Railway Com
pany and against the public welfare and inter
est of the people and taxpayers OF the City and
County OF San Francisco.
Again it says:
That there are several street railroad COM
panies in said City and County with provisions
IL their franchises requiring them to pay2 per
cent Of their gross earnings TO the said City
sand County, and within the last five years said
City and County has collected the sum OF about
seventeen hundred dollars ($1700) from such
source as public revenue.
That the San Francisco and San Mateo Rail-
way Company, corporation, now and at all
times mentioned herein operates street rail-
road in said City. and County and has such
q provision in its franchise, and is one of the
companies from which said City and County
has collected public revenue as herelnbefore
mentioned.
That the said Market-street Railway Com
pany pays no such revenue to the City and
County ofSan Francisco for any street railroad
franchise now owned by it, and with the inten-
ton of preventing the City and County of San
lie revenue per cent upon its gross earnings
for the privilege of running and operating its
cars upon the said public streets, it designedly
and unlawfully caused TO be inserted in the
advertised notice OF sale with a condition that
the privilege and franchise should be 'to con-
struct lay down, maintain and operate for the
unexpired terms of the respective franchises
heretofore granted for its line of street railroad
with the law, and with the object OF making it
appear that it is applying for no new privilege
and franchise subject under the law to pay the
said per cent OF the gross earnings to the
City and County of San Francisco as hereinbe-
fore mentioned, but as a continuance of the
franchises already granted to its line of street
railroad Mission street, which is not re-
quired under its franchises to pay the said