The San Francisco call., 1895-07-20
M. z. SMITH, PLAINTIFF.
Action Is Based on the Market
Street Railway Franchise
toIngleside.
CITATIONS ISSUED YESTERDAY.
They Are Made Returnable Before
Judge Slack on the 3lst or
This Month.

SultWas Deguu YESTERDAY III Uii0 SuPoAiOA
Court looking to the impeachment OF the
Solid Eight OF the Board OF Supervisors:
Joseph King, First Ward.
Peter A. ScuIly, Second Ward.
Charles e. Benjamin, Third Ward.
AIphonse Hirsch, Fourth Ward.
Edward c. Hughes, Sixth Ward.
Chris bunker. Seventh Ward.
Alfred W. MOrgenstern, Ninth Ward.
Edward L. Wagner, Twelfth Ward.
The suit is brought by K NJ. Smith, a
well-known attorney, who has been
largely identified with the work and the
legal battles of improvement clubs.
The complaint charges the Solid Eight
with malfeasance in Office in wlllfully and
knowingly violating their official duties;
with willfully and unlawfully conspiring
together against the public interest and in
behalf of the interests OF the Market-street
Railway Company.
It cites the facts of that meeting of the
board on the afternoon on July 8, which
have been told in The CALL, when the
Solid Eight ''caused to be advertised the
Market-street Railway Company's appli-
cation for franchise with conditions and
restrictions in its own favor, drafted and
framed BY order of the said Market-street
Railway Company, with the object and
intention of defeating the purpose of the
law and preventing any competition or bid
ding whatever against it for the said fran
chise, expressly in the interest of the
Market-street Railway Company and
against the public welfare and interest of
the people and taxpayers OF the City and
County of San Francisco"
nBy reason of the conditions and re-
strictions maintained in the advertised
order" saws the complaint submitted by
the Market-street Railway Company, one
of which being to maintain and operate
for the unexpired terms of the franchises
heretofore granted for its line of street
railroad on Mission street and
the further condition that the grant must
be as an extension of or adjunct to and in
connection with the said Market-street
Railway Company the San Francisco and
San Mateo Railway Company and other
corporations are prevented from bidding
for the same in that they must run their
cars as an adjunct to and in connection
with the line of the Market-street Railway
COMPANY. Instead of encouraging COM
petition, on the contrary everything that
can be devised or conceived to make the
franchise unacceptable to any but the
Market-street Railway Company has been
inserted in the proposed grant"
1t is charged that the Market-street Rail-
way Company presented this order before
the board with fraudulent intent, to secure
under the disguise of legal formalities
pretended grant of franchise, and to cheat
the City out of reasonable compensation
for the privileges to be granted to them;
that the eight members in voting for the
same did violate and attempt to violate the
laws of the State, and are therefore guilty
of misdemeanor and malfeasance in office.
The complainant alleges that the franchise
over the several routes to be sold to the
Market-street Company for $500 for the
lot are reasonably worth $4,000 each.
The complainant alleges further that he
knows of his own knowledge that the
Market-street Company has repeatedly Sc
cured franchises over streets of the City
without any intention Of building the
lines.
He recites that at the meeting referred
TO- Supervisor c. L. Taylor called the at
tention of the board to the unlawful condi-
tions and restrictions and other objection
able features of the proposed order, and
offered a substitute such as conformed to
the law, but that, nevertheless, the said
eight members, ''fully advised and know
ing the fraudulent design of the Market
street Railway Company" by their votes
defeated the offered substitute, and ''know-
ingly, deliberately, willfully and unlaw-
fully, by their votes, !" passed the resolution
favoring the Market-street Railway Com
pany against the interest of the taxpayers
and people of the City and County.
The plaintiff prays that the eight ac-
cused members of the board be adjudged
guilty of malfeasance in Office and be de-
prived of their Office.
A citation was issued by Judge Sander
son, made returnable on Wednesday, July
81, at 10 O'Clock, before Judge Slack. This
is the beginning of the first lesson.
Following is the full text of the COM
plant:
Deponent and complainant charges, ac-
cuses and alleges that the following public
officers and eight members of the Board of
Supervisors of said City and County of
San Francisco, to wit:
Joseph King, First Ward;
Peter A. Scu1ly, Second Ward;
Charles E. Be.ismin, Third Ward;
Alphonse Hirsch, Fourth Ward;
Edward C. Hughes, Sixth Ward;
Chris Bunker, Seventh Ward;
Alfred w. Morgenstern. Ninth Ward;
Edward L. Wagner, Twelfth Ward;
Have been guilty of malfeasance in office.
and charges and accuses them of know
ingly and willfully refusing and neglecting
to perform the official duties pertaining to
their Office in the manner, and more par
ticularly as follows:
That it was the official duty of said
Supervisors, and each OF them, under the
laws of the State of California, more par
ticularly under an act providing for the
sale of railroad and other franchises in
municipalities relating to granting of
franchises, approved March %, 1893, pro-
yiding for the granting of franchises or
privileges to construct and operate street
railroads along or upon any public street
Or highway of any city or city and county