The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-08
SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.

A curious illustration of an unnatural
condition of affairs is presented at Ala
media. AS usual the story has two sides.
One is that the extension of the Laundry
Farm Railroad through Alameda to the
tidal canal contemplates the forcible push
ing of the road across the property of
man named Hebard without his consent,
that the Southern Pacific Company is really
back of the job, and that Hebard has to
stand day and night armed with a shot
gun to prevent the outrage. The other
side is that there is no such intention on
the part OF the railroad, and that Hebard
is squatter and has no right to the pos
session which he asserts.
Whatever may be the merits of these
stories, it is notorious fact that railway
companies often secure right of way by
forcible or stealthy means, and that the
law virtually upholds them in the theft.
Over and over in this City the Market
street Railway Company has taken IN
warranted possession of the streets in the
dead of night and had tracks laid and
cars running before daylight. Then the
company felt secure. If the City authori-
ties should make a contest ct all it would
CS Al lAAO SO1il MN, ltlC, tI1S
way company does not fear, and which in
any event would be slow process, and,
meanwhile, the company enjoys the in
definite illegal use of the highway. In
view of these facts it seems a natural pre-
sumption that the Southern Pacific is be-
hind the A lameda scheme, and the people
there commonly believe this to be the fact.
In order to show this community that
the authorities may not with impunity re-
move a track that has been illegally laid
or that is Illegally operated the Suffer-
street Railway Company has brought a
suit for heavy damages against ex-Mayor
Ellert and ex-Superintendent of Streets
Alderman for tearing up the rails of the
Bush-street line, which was VIGOROUSLY
operated in violation of the terms of the
franchise, and which therefore had no
right to occupy the street. There is dan
ger that these gentlemen will be made to
suffer unless the citizens come to their
rescue and make a hard fight.
The interests of the defendants in this
case are of secondary consideration.
Should the railway company win the suit
precedent will have been established OF
very great Importance to the City Those
puDlIC OIuCeTS aCIeu IN Ine exercise or
what they conceived to be their duty
toward the City. They were ably advised,
and there never has been the least suspi-
cion of an unworthy motive on their part
Nor has there ever been any doubt that
they were right and were acting strictly
within the law. Their action, as officers
of the City. was the action of the City and
of its people, and hence the people are the
real defendants in this case, and very
serious rights which they claim are
threatened
Beyond all this is the manifestly absurd
proposition that while railway company
may seize right of way by force or stealth
there is no prompt redress and rarely any
redress at all. 1t Is an amazing shame
that citizen of this country, finding no
protection from the law and it's officers.
must stand guard over his property with
shotgun and maintain his plainest right
only by threats to kill if they are tres
passed upon. This seems to be a yery
good time for looking more closely into
this matter. Perhaps it might be we'll to
bring such cases within the Jurisdiction
of the criminal courts.