The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-25
SUTRO'S POWER TO VETO,
The Question Will Be Carried
Into Court If Nee
eSSary.
SUNNYsIDE FRANCHISE DOOMED
VIII Be Vetoed by the Mayor-The
Civic Federation Preparing
for Battle.

It is understood from a most reliable
source that Mayor Sutro intends to veto
the Sunnyside railway franchise sometime
between now and next Saturday, and that
he will also insist on his right to have the
tax-levy ordinance submitted to him in
order that he may veto that also.
Within the last few days quite number
of demands have been made on the Civic
Federation by prominent citizens asking
that organization to look in to these matters
for the purpose of supporting the Mayor
in his contests with the Solid Eight. 1t
has been asked to investigate the legal
right of the Mayor to veto the tax levy
and the recently granted Sunnyside Rail-
way franchise.
That body will hold meeting on next
President Truman in the Mills building,
to consider these matters. 1t will then be
decided whether or not to begin suit to set
aside the franchise in case it is passed over
the Mayors veto, and to compel observance
of the Mayors prerogative. These matters
are now in the hands of two prominent at
torneys for their legal opinion.
In an interview with Charles Wesley
Reed, the attorney of the Civic Fedora
ton, he said:
There is no doubt of the right of the Mayor
to veto the tax levy and the Sunnyside fran
ehise. In the case of J. P. w. Eisenhuth eft al.
VS.. W. w. Ackerson, Superintendent OF Streets,
it was decided by the Supreme Court that the
Mayor had the power to veto franchise
granted by the Supervisors for street railway
in this city. That was the case in which Els
enhuth began to lay a double-track electric
railway on Broderick street and w w. Acker-
son proceeded to tear up the tracks and was
enjoined.
The ordinance granting this franchise had
been previously granted by the Supervisors
and had been vetoed by Mayor Ellert.
The question was as to the power of the
Mayor 10 veto such franchise, and the Su-
preme Court declared that the Mayor had that
power, as given in section 6S OF the consol-
idation act, and further declared that the case
OF Jacobs vs.. the Board of Supervisors, in which
it was said that the Mayor had no power to
veto the water ordinance, did not apply.
Inasmuch as the consolidation act in Sec
ton 90 gives to the Mayor the right to veto
any ordinance relating to levying tax or
assessment as well as granting any privilege,
it would seem that this case of Eisenhuth VS..
AckerSon is authority for the statement that
the Mayor has the power to veto any ordinance
granting franchise, and also any ordinance
levying q tax or assessment.
The case OF Jacobs VS.. the Supervisors went
off on this point: That the veto power should
not be favored by implication, and as the con-
stitution in the passage relating to water rates
did not expressly give to the Mayor the power
of vetoing water ordinance, therefore that
power would not be implied.
But the authority TO veto an ordinance
granting franchise or levying an assessment
or tax Is expressly given to the Mayor of San
Francisco by section 90 of the consolidation
act, and, therefore, under all these decisions il
would seem that the Mayor has valid veto
power. Besides, the case of Eisenhuth VS.
Ackerson is the latest on this point.