The San Francisco call., 1895-07-21
Nothing Definite Can Be
Learned About the Removal
of the Rails.
MR.. DoHRMANN's STATEMENT.
The Southern Pacific Company Still
Monopolizes the Ocean
Boulevard.

| the temporary franchise under which the
| tracks were laid. AS THE CALL has fre-
ouently pointed out, these tracks have no
| legal right on the ocean boulevard. Still
| they remain.
| And what is worse, no definite state
ment can be obtained as to the date of
their removal, or even as to whether they
will be removed. The Park Commissioners
declare that the Southern Pacific Company
will remove the tracks as soon as their
service to the Merchants Association in
hauling street swespings to the park has
ceased. But this is rather conclusion or
| the part of the PARK Commissioners than
the statement OF a demonstrable fact
Doubtless the Park Commissioners are sin
cere in stating their conclusions.
| Will the Park Commissioners demand
| that the tracks be removed from the Ocean
| boulevard within a specified time?
| This is a question that the Park Com
missioners do not answer by yea or nay.
! ~ tell you," said Commissioner John
Rosenfeld Yesterday, "that the Southern
Pacific is losing money on those tracks
and will be glad to take them away as COON
| as they are no longer necessity to the
| park"
But in his zeal for the welfare of the
park Commissioner Rosenfeld overlooks
| the fact that the previous history of the
| Southern Pacific does not warrant the pub
lie in placing such confidence in the cor
poration.
| In the first place it was an outrageous
| piece of work on the part of the railroad to
| destroy the ocean boulevard by laying its
rails thereon, when at but little more ex-
pense the tracks might have been laid on
! Eorty-eighth avenue, where they would
| have interfered with no one.
| And then the conditions upon which the
Board of Supervisors granted the Southern
Pacific temporary right of way over the
| ocean boulevard into the park were that at
| the end of one year the tracks should be
removed.
Were the tracks removed at the end of
that year? Did the Southern Pacific Com
! pany keep its part of that compact2
| Well, the tracks are still there. And if
| the Southern Pacific broke its solemn
agreement then, what reason is there for
believing that it will voluntarily remove
| the tracks when their service to the Mer-
| chants Association is concluded?
Yet the Park Commissioners have un-
| bounded faith in the well-meaning of the
| Southern Pacific, and Mr.. Dohrmann, presi-
| dent of the Merchants Association, has q
similar abiding trustfulness in the corpora
ton that in the past has notoriously been
grasping to the last and honorable in its
dealings with the public seldom or never.
| The following communication from the
president of the Merchants Association
| shows the attitude of that organization in
| the matter. 1t is the desire of Mr.. Dohr-
mann and his associates to get the street
sweepings to the park, where they are
needed. Mr.. Dohrmann writes:
MERcHANTs' ASSOCIATION, !
SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 1S95.}
| To the Editor of the CoIt-SIR: Permit me to
explain to your readers the relations OF the
railroad company, Park Commissioners and
/ Merchants Association to the use of the spur
| tracks for carrying street sweepings to the
| park.
| When this association, nearly year ago, be-
gan to have street-sweeping done, it was sug-
| gested to us by Supervisors Day and Denman
and others that the sweepings, which would
make splendid fertilizers, should be used for
that purpose, and were informed that all efforts
TO find practical manner to send them out
| had so far been unsuccessful.
| Hoping to benefit the park, we tried to have
the electric or cable ear lines arrange for doing
! the necessary hauling, but found that it would
| take considerable time and money to arrange
| for depots tracks and cars. and as our term was
| but an experimental one. we had to abandon
| this plan for the time being.
We next began to negotiate with the rail-
road company, and they finally, after consider
able hesitation and at some inconvenience in
preparing for 1t, agreed to do this hauling over
! the spur tracks during our term of contract at
| actual cost of doing the work, in order TO help
| both our experimental STRENGTHENING and
| bentfiting the park.
| The cost was estimated to be $5 per carload,
| and although it soon became apparent that
! this rate did not cover the actual outlay, that
has been the charge ever since.
After the expiration of our contract, July :
| we were notified that the company would not
| hereafter continue this service unless the rate
was $40 per carload. We have, however, asked
| that the service be continued at the old rate
| until new contractor relieves this association
! from the street-sweeping which we are now
doing to accommodate the City until then, and
| are satisfied the company will comply with
| this request.
! The Park Commissioners allow 25 cents per
| cubic yard for these sweepings, which is not
sufficient to pay the higher freight now asked.
have proven of great benefit to the park and
| are OF no value elsewhere every effort should
| be made to find permanent way by which the
park can have the benefit of their use at reason
able cost.
For this purpose we will consult with the
streetcar lines and Park Commissioners and
| others and submit the result to the Board of
| Supervisors for such action as may be required
from them to carry out the plans arrived at.
| As soon as this is accomplished there will be
no reason why the spur tracks should not be
removed, and we believe that both the railroad
| company and Park Commissioners will gladly
| have this done at that time. Respectfully,
F. w. DoHRMANN
And so the case stands at present. What
will be done no one can or will say. What
ought to be done is very clear. Those spur
| tracks should be removed within a given
time, whether or not the street-sweepings
are lost to the park. No amount of culti-
waiting soil can recompense the people of
San Francisco for the loss of the ocean
| boulevard.
| And what makes the need of the hour
| more pressing is recent ruling of the
Surname Court in q Santa Rosa case