The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-08
THE LEASE REJECTED.

The lease of China Basin as amended by
the Harbor Commissioners has been SUBJ
mitted to the directors of the Valley road
and after due consideration has been
unanimously rejected. This to the people
of California is the most important news
that has been published for many day.
1t is fraught with momentous conse-
quences to the business interests of the
people and threatens to check the advance
of that great enterprise on which the COM
ing prosperity of the State is so largely
dependent.
1t behooves the Harbor Commissioners
to look carefully to the work of their hands
and consider well what they have done.
The construction of the San Joaquin road
was undertaken by public spirited men for
the purpose of breaking the monopoly OF
transportation and liberating the energy,
the enterprise, the industry and the trade
of the people from the oppressive bondage
of the excessive freight charges which have
so long burdened them.
While the promotion of the road was
mainly due to the efforts and zeal of few
able leaders, it was none the less under
taken in response to public need, it has
been aided by popular subscriptions, and is
in the truest sense the peoples road. The
people have favored it, and have INDUCED
the hope that it would be soon completed.
They will closely scrutinize, therefore, the
act by which it has been checked in its
the Objectionable amendments and who
they are that in this supreme crisis have
cunningly attempted to render the old
railroad monopoly the important service
OF crushing the competing line.
We speak of the Objectionable amend
ments to the lease as an attempt to crush
the competing line, advisedly. Practically
it amounts to just that. The directors of
the San Joaquin road were unanimous in
rejecting the amended lease, because it
would render their City terminal insecure
and thereby materially lessen the value of
their road. What would be the use
OF the road without a sure terminal?
How could bonds be sold, loans
negotiated or any of the complex financial
transactions of SO great an enterprise be
carried on, so long as there were clauses in
the lease of its terminal facilities that
would enable an opponent at any time to
raise some legal question or bubble that
would cloud even if it did not invalidate
the title?
If the Commissioners who voted for the
amendments were sincerely convinced of
the necessity of them, they are certainly
more remarkable for excessive caution
than for due discretion. What is there to
be feared from the San Joaquin road? Are
there not guarantees enough that it will
be a competing road in good faith and
honest purpose2 Are not the promoters
of it citizens of San Francisco who have
every interest in maintaining it as an indie
pendent competing line?
Has not the stock been pooled for ten
years under terms that assure its continu-
ance as a peoples road competing with the
Is there not a complete legal
guarantee that the dividends from the
earnings of the road shall not exceed per
cent, and that the rates of freights and
fares shall be fixed so as not to exceed that
amount? What further guarantees can
ask2 What more can even
the law give without weakening the legal
standing of the road beyond the possibil-
ity of successful operation?
The people of California look to the
Commissioners to review their actions,
rescind the amendments and give the
competing road fair play. 1t is require
ment of the time. Industry needs it, trade
demands it. Without it the State must
delay its development and the City it's
growth. Progress will be checked, pros
perity will languish. 1t is plain beyond
all argument that the San Joaquin road
must have a well-secured terminus on the
water front of San Francisco. To grant
that terminus is to confer benefit on the
State. To refuse it. either directly or by
cunning indirection, is an outrage.