The San Francisco call., 1895-07-31
SOLID Fights ANSWER
General Dickinson Says There
Is No Difference in the
Franchises.
BUT THE LAW was VIOLATED.
Messrs. Hirsch and Hughes Says 1t
Was a Business Proposi-
ton Only.

In regard to the impeachment suit re-
Gently instituted against the Solid Eight
of the Board of Supervisors, General Dick
lnson, the attorney for the eight, Will hle
demurrer and answer this morning.
"The other side has no case" ne salo
yesterday afternoon. "We shall simply
deny in toto all the allegations, and IN the
filing of our answer will show that we have
nothing to fear. Had we simply hled a
demurrer, It would be different, but we tlIe
an answer in which we will endeavor to
show that there is no difference between
the application for franchise FLED by
Joost of the San Francisco and San Mateo
road and that of the Market-street Rail
way Company.
1--WE shall deny all Of the allegations,
and set forth in our answer that the actlon
in awarding the franchise TO the Market
street Railway Company was IN the inter-
est of the dwellers in the district through
which the proposed extensions are to run;
that there will be a better service than the
San Francisco and San Mateo Company
couId furnish, and that those residing in
the district are heartily and unanimously
in favor of the Market-Street company
building the extension through that sec
ton"
Attorney NJ. K. Smith, who brings the
suit against the Solid Eight, stands firm
on the proposition that the board vio-
lated the law in awarding the franchise to
the Market-street Railway Company; that
the franchise should have been properly
put up for bids, and that according to the
wording of the resolution offering the
franchise no company or corporation
other than the Market-street Railway
Company could possibly make bid.
The demurrer and answer are regarded
as immaterial. The wording of the adver-
tisement-that the road is to be operated in
connection with and as an extension and
adjunct to the Market-street system-pre-
cludes the possibility of any other corpo-
ration or street railway system bidding for
the franchise. If the Supervisors can grant
such franchise, then for $500 the Market
street system could tie up all the streets in
the City and exclude all other bids.
Messrs. Hirsch and Hughes claim that
they acted in the interest of the dwellers
in the district through which the new lines
are to run. They also claim that their de-
cision was influenced by the fact that the
San Mateo company (Joost) was bankrupt,
and that it would not be business-like to
award the franchise to corporation in
that condition.
The law on which the suit is based is
emphatic. Under the statutes of 1893 all
franchises must be let out to the highest
bidder, and it is claimed the Solid Eight
not only ignored the law. but laughed at
the logic of the law. The Eight are:
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.
These peremptoriIy dismissed the appli-
cation of the San Francisco and San Mateo
company and granted the franchise as it
was asked for by the Market-street COM
pany.
The demurrer and answer will be filed
to-day and then will begin the fight in
earnest.