The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-10
WILL co TO THE COURTS,
Action to Be Commenced
Against the Market-Street
Railway.
Church Street Property Owners
Employ Mr.. Van Duzer as
Their Counsel.

quo WdrrdnIO proceedings are u NC COuI-
menced at an early date against the Mar
ket-street Railway Company to compel it
to show by what right it holds the Church
street franchise. Attorney A. P. Van Duzer
was appointed last night fof that purpose
by the Church-street improvement Club,
at citizens meeting in Duyenecks Hall,
near the corner of Church and Twenty
fourth streets.
A. R. Gunnison called the meeting to
order and related the facts of the Church
street grab, and reviewed the history of the
efforts of Church-street property-ownerst to
secure street railway all the way out to
Thirtieth street. About three years ago
the sum of $500 was raised by the Church
street Improvement Club for the purchase
of right of way through the Leroy estate,
from Ridley to Sixteenth streets, occupied
by Chinese gardeners. To this amount the
City added $500. and the right of way thus
secured became public highway, with an
understanding that if street railway
franchise was granted it should be for a
line all the way out Church street to
Thirtieth The story of the Church street
grab, about two months ago, is well known
to the readers of the CALL.
The Church-street people claim that the
Market-street Company had promised to
run its electric line out to Thirtieth street,
but backed out after securing possession of
the three blocks from Ridley street 10 Six
teenth. By securing the right of way for
a street through the Leroy estate they say
they fulfilled their part of the agreement,
which was to get Church street opened all
the way to Market. On the other hand,
the street railway company argues that it
would be a physical impossibility for its
electricians to climb the hill from Nine
tenth street to Twenty-frst.
The meeting was pretty well attended,
and about all that could be said was said
by Mr. Gunnison, c. E. Myers, who pre-
sided, and the other speakers. Mr.. Van
Duzer himself was present, and laid down
the law, contrasting the provisions of the
act of March 8, 1893, with the advertise
ment of the franchise as published.
According to the law" explained Mr..
Van Duzer, "the notice should state the
length of time for which the franchise was
to be granted; the streets on which it was
to run, the nature OF the franchise-that Is,
whether cable, electric, telegraph or other
wise, and the law also says that 1T is to be
sold to the highest bidder. But the phrase
ology of the advertisement made 1t useless
for any other company than the Market
street Railway to bid. 1t read thus:
" From connection with the line OF the
Market-street Railway Company to Six
teenth street at or near its intersection
with Church street, thence along. and
upon Church street to Ridley, and thence
along and upon Ridley street to Fillmore
to connection with the line of the Mar
ket-street Railway Company on Fillmore
street at or near the intersection of Ridley
street.
"Of course, no other company would. put
in a bid on any proposition like that"
Mr.. Gunnison expressed the sense of the
meeting when he stated that it was imma-
terial what company had the franchise, so
long as they got line all the way out
Church street to Thirtieth. 1t was con-
Guided that there was only one way to go
about the matter, namely: lawsuit. Ac-
cordingIy Mr.. Van Duzer was chosen as
counsel and promised to begin proceed
ings at once. A committee to raise money
enough to defray expenses of legal con-
test was chosen in the following, who will
report progress next Thursday night: A.
R. Gunnison, J. ]. Woodhouse, B. Cox,
T. F. Hegerty, w. Tegeler, r. B. Beall, D..
Hoffman,, P C. Strahle, FL. HeweIcke and
P. McMurray.