The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-07

party accused and if on such hearing it APP
pears that the charge is sustained, the court
must enter decree that the party accused be
deprived of his Office, and must enter judg-
ment for $500 in favor of the informer, and
such costs as are allowed in civil cases.
The act of 1893 has so frequently been
printed in THE CALL that it is scarcely
necessary to repeat it. 1t provides the
manner in which the board shall grant
franchises; that upon application for a
franchise the board shall, upon determln-
ing to grant the same, advertise it. The
advertisement must state the character of
the franchise, the term of. its continuance,
the route and the day upon which bids
will be received. On that day the tenders
must be opened and the franchise awarded
to the highest bidder. For defeating or
attempting to defeat the purpose of the
law the penalty is forfeiture of the office.
Upon conviction the men shall be deemed
guilty of misdemeanor and malfeasance of
office and subject to fine and Imprison-
ment.
The argument was conducted by K. NJ.
Smith on his own behalf, and General j.
II. Dickinson for the defendants.
The defendants were not in court at the
opening, but Wagner and King came in a
few minutes before the noon adjournment.
In the afternoon Benjamin also appeared.
The argument was upon the demurrer of
defendants, which set up technical objec-
tons to the proceedings under these laws
as stated.
He maintained ali the way through that
the laws required trial and conviction,
and the action must be based upon an in
dictment.
The act of 1893, relative to the sale of
franchises. provides" he said, "that any
member of the Board of Supervisors who,
by his vote, attempts to violate its provis-
ions, is guilty of misdemeanor and of
malfeasance in office. and can be deprived
of his office after trial and conviction. This
means that the officer so accused must be
indicted by the Grand Jury and tried upon
the Indictment. Section 772 of the Penal
Code, under which this complaint is filed,
does not apply. The real complaint is that
the Board intends to do something-in-
tends to let franchise. No malfeasance
in office is alleged.
Continuing. Dickinson said: "The right
of an individual to begin proceedings for
the removal of an officer is strictly lin
tied, by section 772 of the Penal Code, to
two specific grounds-first, to the case
where a public officer has charged and col
lected illegal fees for services rendered !;
and second, to a refusal or neglect on the
part of an officer to perform the duties
pertaining to his Office. This prosecution
does not fall within either ground of COM
a single allegation of fraud in the COM
plant"
Smith, in his reply, which consumed
several hours, covered the whole ground,
both of fact and law, that have been so
often recited. He told the story of how
the eight-naming them
JOSEPH KING,
PETER A. SCULLY,
G. Il. BENJAMIN,
ALPHONSE HIRSCH,
K. G. HUGHES.
CHRIS BUNKER,
A, w. MORGENSTERN,
EDWARD WAGNER
Voted eight times against the interests of
the people and in favor of the Market
street Railway Company, refusing to raise
the minimum bid from the paltry $500 for
for this splendid and valuable privilege,
refusing to open the matter to competition,
refusing to put any kind of time limit on
the grant which would require the COM
pany to build the Sunnysine branch in less
than the three years, at which the State
law works forfeiture.
The act of 1898. he said was one of the
strongest in the books, providing a pen
atty not only for its being ignored by the
Supervisors, but where they attempt to ig-