The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-10
WHEN SUPERVISORS DISREGARD THE LAW

day last that for this reason and that they
did not propose that the San Mateo Com
pany should have this franchise. Who
gave the right to the Board of Supervisors
to say who should or should not have what
is to be offered under the law to the high
est bidder.
But neither would it matter what any
member of the board said in debate if the
letter of the law were to be Observed
that is, that the simple application for the
franchise be advertised for ten days, the
board meet at the day stated and the fran
chise awarded to the highest bidder. In
that case it would matter not at all to
either of them that the application as ad-
vertised was that of the Market-street
Company or the San Mateo Company.
But when the members of the Solid
Eight said they intended to grant the
franchise to the Market-street Company
they meant just that, despite the law.
And see the means they employ. The
advertisement, "as required by law" ap-
peared in the official paper, the Report,
last evening. Among other things 1t pro-
vides that:
Resolution No. IL, 61O third series).-
W
this board by the Market-street Railway
Company to construct, lay down, main
tain and operate for the unexpired terms
of the respective franchises heretofore
granted for its line of street railroad on
Mission street, Mission-street road and
Telegraph or New County road, as eaten
SONS of and GdjunctS to, aud in cOnnec-
tfon scith said line of railroad, a single
or double track street railroad, etc.
And further:
And whereas, 1t is proposed to grant
under the conditions and restrictions
imposed in the draft of an order sub
mitted by said company with its appH-
cation, filed on July I, 1895,
franchise for a street railway along, over
and upon the streets, highways and prem
ises hereinbefore mentioned; therefore,
etc.
This is the manner in which this fran
chise is offered to the public to bid upon,
and under which 1t is to be let to the high
est bidder. A railroad that is to be oper
ated as extensions Of and adjuncts to,
and in connection with" the Market-street
line would of course be very inviting to an
opposition line, wouldn't it?
A franchise that was to be granted only
Under conditions and restrictions i'm
posed in the draft of an order submitted
by said (hIarket-street) company.
Would be especially valuable to some
other railroad company, wouldn't itP
II this proceeding is not a direct evasion
or defiance of the law, then what is it?
Is it not clear that the majority of the
Board of Supervisors have gone long step
out of the way in order to defeat the plain
intention of the law?
While they 60 through the form of calling
for bids they place conditions about the
franchise advertised under which only the
Market-street Railway Company can gain
title to the thing sold.
Now, this is not pleading in behalf of
the San Francisco and San Mateo Railway
Company any further than that company
happens to be the victim of a gross outrage
perhaps misdemeanor-commi by
members of the Board of Supervisors, and
which, in its usurpation and disregard of
the law, strikes at the very foundation of
government. Certainly it is thing vitality
interesting to every citizen of this City
and County-for whom these men pre-
sumo to make laws.
The law was framed to defeat the
Vaccinations of monopoly, and the Board
of Supervisors, under the direction of
monopoly's own attorneys, who framed
this resolution, the advertisement and the
franchise, overthrow it. And for excuse
Supervisor Hughes explains that the other
applicant for the franchise runs over some
body's sidewalk, owes some workingman
his wages, does not keep its roadway IN
order, does not run its cars on time, does
not live up to its promises.
Was anything more childish ever heard?
What has he to say OF the Church-street
outrage and of all the long line of broken
pledges, some of them given under oath
and before the courts? What is to be said
of all this?
It is very well known that the Market
street Company in its intrenched and far
reaching power is very largely responsible
for the financial difficulties of this little
competitor, which it has harassed and
hindered in every possible way. And Mr..
Hughes, as spokesman for the Market
street Company, now uses these difficulties
as an argument why it should be deprived
of further privileges.
When it is considered that the San
Mateo road pays-is required to pay-into
the City treasury 2 per cent of its gross
earnings, while its big competitor pays,
and is required to pay, nothing, this argu-
ment is especially powerful in the opinion
of the average taxpayer.
What the people demand, and what the
law contemplates, is the encouragement of
competition. The Supervisors have said
we shall have none of it.
Whether they shall prevail will perhaps
form another story.
But there is another stipulation in the
advertisement which lawyers say is IN
lawful-that which stipulates that "No
bid shall be less than $780,"
1t will be remembered that the Solid
Eight could not be prevailed upon to raise
this figure. Why should they? 1t is an
invention of the Market-street Company.
1t was through it that its grasp upon the
entire City was made practically secure.
Through it the difference between "fran-
chise" and an extension of franchise"
was defined in the City's ordinance Under
the provisions of that ordinance the Sutro
Railroad Company was compelled to pay
$4,000 for what the Market-street Company
could have secured for S50O Cutro bod No