The San Francisco call., 1895-08-01
THE ISSUE JOINED.

The Solid Eight have filed their answer
to the accusation of malfeasance in Office,
laid recently before the Superior Court.
The answer, when read carefully, will be
found to be sort of confession and avoid
ance which is practically an admission of
guilt and which must result in their swift
conviction unless the court shall nullify
the statute of 1898.
The answer of the Solid Eight may for
the sake of analysis and criticism be
divided into two parts: First, that which
alleges the insolvency and general worth
lessness of the San Francisco and san
Mateo Railway Company as reason why
its application for the franchise was
ignored, and second, denial OF any inten-
ton to commit breach of the statute OF
1893 in proposing to sell the franchise IN
question to the Market-street Railway
Company. Coupled with this denial there
is an averment that the manner in which
this franchise is advertised TO be sold will
not in anyway interfere with free compe-
tition among bidders at its public sale.
With respect to the first portion of this
answer it should be plain to all that it pre-
sents an utterly immaterial issue. In the
first place the statute wisely excludes any
exercise of such a pretended discretion on
the part of the Board of Supervisors as
would permit them to ignore an applica-
ton for a franchise. That this is true is
very evident from the fact that the statute
expressly requires the franchise to be
granted to the highest bidder. 1t follows
that if the board has power under the
statute to ignore an applicant for the fran
chise in the first instance, it must
also have the power to ignore the
bid of the same applicant at the
sale OF the franchise even though
he should be the highest bidder therefor.
One of the clearest and plainest purposes Of
the act of 1898 was to take away from the
Board of Supervisors the power to exercise
this dangerous discretion, in order that
they might not do the very thing which
the Solid Eight are attempting to do in
the present instance. The claim that the
first applicant for this franchise is ire
sponsible is therefore an unimportant
issue in the present controversy, and
the elaboration with which it is set
forth in the answer of the Solid
Eight appears to be nothing more
nor less than an effort to becloud the real
issue before the court with mass of in
consequential averments.
The second portion of the answer pre-
sents the only issue in the case. That
issue is whether or not the governing
power of city, in providing for the public
sale of franchise to construct a railroad
uponits streets, can weave into the fran
abiSa rrnTOcod m ho c11nb oopdi-
tons and limitations as to make it valuable
10 but one bidder and utterly worthless
to any but that favored one. This is pre-
cisely what the Solid Eight have done in
the present instance. They have resolved
that they will sell a franchise to operate a
railroad over several streets, but have
coupled with and interviewer into that
franchise the requirement that the rail-
road shall be ''an adjunct 10 and extern
sion of and operated in connection with"
the already existing lines of the Market
street Railway Company. By what pos
sible bidder could such franchise be
utilized save the one OF whose railroad
system it must be an adjunct and exten-
sion?
The matter is too plain for argument.
For this franchise there can be one bid
der, and will be but one bid. If the act of
1893 which seems so clear and simple, is
susceptible of the construction which the
Solid Eight have placed upon it, then, in
stead Of protection and a benefit to San
Francisco, it is an injury, a delusion and
snare. If the Solid Eight have right
under this act to advertise and sell this
franchise as an adjunct to and ex-
tension of the Market-street Cable Rail
way system when the Market-street
Railway Company is the applicant, it
follows that they have the right to i'm
pose the same conditions upon every other
franchise to be sold, no matter who the
applicant may be. 1t follows further that
the Solid Eight possess the power to offer
in lump franchises TO run railroads over
every unoccupied street in the City of San
Francisco with the limitation that the
purchaser can only utilize them as ad-
juncts to and extensions of the Market
street Railway system. These conclusions
are irresistible, and display the utter alb
surdity of the defense which the Solid
Eight have offered to the charge of NAL
feasance in Office.
Inc issues are now maue up anu the
cause of the people of San Francisco
against the Solid Eight is ready for trial.
Let there be none Of the laws delay in the
submission and decision of this case. The
of the City and of good govern
ment demand a prompt and righteous
Judgment therein in order that we may
and that speedily, how far
officials can go in their disregard of duty
and evasion of the letter and spirit of the
law.
INSURANCE AND MUROTR