The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-21
THE CHURCH, STREET LINE
Judge Slack Hears Argu ment
on the Legality of the
Franchise.
Technical Defense by the Railroad.
Legality of the ADVERTISE
ment Argued.

| The argument on the demurrer filed by
| the Market-street Railway Company
against the complaint for forfeiture of
| the Church. street franchise was COM
| menced in Department 10 of the Superior
Court yesterday before Judge Slack, A. P.
Van Duzer appearing for the people and
Mr.. Foulds for the corporation.
The objections to the complaint were
technical in the extreme. 1t was argued
that the complaint asked for a forfeiture of
the franchise and also that the railroad
should be declared public nuisance. Both
these things should not be asked for in the
same action. Further the complaint stated
that the franchise was illegal be cause it
was not signed by the Mayor. This is not
saying that it was not so signed.
After listening to this kind of legal hair
splitting for some time the court re-
quested Attorney Van Duzer to explain
the grounds on which he claimed for
fixture. In reply the attorney stated that
he contended that the franchise was void
on two grounds-tirst, it was not adver-
tised for sale to the highest bidder, and,
secondly, it was not signed by the Mayor,
but was vetoed, and did not receive the
votes of nine Supervisors. Both these
things are essential and both were omitted
in this ordinance.
There was discussion between the
court and the lawyers on the character of
the advertisement, during which Judge
Slack inquired if it was claimed that the
franchise was not advertised.
Mr.. Van Duzer-There was an advertise
ment published, but it was so manifestly
fraudulent that it had no more legal effect
than if it had been chapter from the
Koran.
10 11rf Tn, hot r 10
gal?
Van Duzer-The statute says it must
state the length of time the franchise is to
run.
Foulds--It does this.
Van Duzer-If you will show me that in
the advertisement will sit down.
Foulds then read from the advertise
ment that the term of the franchise"
asked for was to be the same as the ''unex-
pired term of the respective franchises
heretofore granted on the streets between
which the connections are to be made"
Attorney Van Duzer replied that the
main element of value in a franchise is
the length of time which it has to run.
and as no information on this point was
given in the advertisement it was impossi-
Bile for any one to bid except the corpora
ton which made the application.
The statement that the term of the fran
chise was the same as that of the "un-
expired terms" of other franchises, without
| naming them or how many years these
"unexpired terms" had to live, was a
fraudulent evasion of the principal re-
quirement of the law. The duty of the
Board of Supervisors as the governing and
legislative body of the City was to strictly
follow the letter of the law. When they
did not their acts were totally void.
Foulds denied that the Board of Super.
visors and the Mayor were the legislative
body of the City.
Van Duzer thought that point might be
well taken, as many people considered the
railroad corporation to be vested with this
function.
Judge Slack did not make any decision
In the case, but intimated that in his
opinion the view taken by the attorney
| for the people was too strict, and if the
bidders could find out from the advertise
| ment how long the franchise had to run
| it was legal advertisement, although it
did not state how many years it would
last. The.court also suggested some i'm
provements in wording of the complaint,
| to which Attorney Van Duzer consented
and asked that the case be continued ten
| days for that purpose, which was done.