The San Francisco call., 1896-02-19
STREETCAR TRANSFERS,
The Merchants Association Re-
plies to Manager Winnings
Refusal.
An Unkept Pledge Relative to Carry.
ing Passengers on Kearny
Street.

The Merchants Association is anything
but pleased with the action of the Market
street Cable Company in refusing to COM
ply with the request to issue transfers at
certain points along its lines. The mer-
chants are particularly desirous of having
transfers issued to and from the Kearny-
street electric line to cars running to the
Mission.
Several months ago the Merchants As
sociation sent a special committee consist
ing Of A. S. Baldwin, c. A. Benedict, S.
w. Dixon, f. w. Dohrmann, John Farm
ham, A. S. Halidie, H. Hart, H. D. Keil,
NJ. S. Kohlberg, Frank Maskey, Frank A.
Swain, H. H. Taylor, George D. Toy w.
G. Doane and ]. Richard Freud (secretary)
to interview General Manager Z. P. VIM
ing. At that interview the committee
made known the requests of the associa-
ton, which voiced the wishes of every
merchant on kearny street and every resi-
dent at North Beach. Mr.. Vining raised
the objection that the issuance of transfers
is already sadly abused by the public
through the traffic in passes at the present
terminal points. He suggested that the
association cause the Supervisors to pass
law making the traffic in transfers illegal.
In order to gain time Mr.. Vining asked
that the committee present its request in
writing, which was done a week later. On
answered the letter at length, giving rea-
sons and excuses why the request could
not be complied with. AS stated, the re-
fusal did not please the mem bers of the
association, and as an invitation was ex-
tended by Vining to further continue the
discussion of the matter the special COM
mittee did not let the subject drop.
Yesterday morning the committee met
and all were present except Mr.. Doane.
Mr. Vining's letter of refusal was carefully
considered and the following answer
made, which was forwarded at once:
SAN FRANCISCO. Feb. 1S, 1896.
E. P. Yining, Esq, General Manager Market
Street Rdiltrdy C0mpany-DEAR SIR: Your reply
of the 10Th inst. to our communication OF the
20th ult. addressed to the board of directors
of the Market-street Railway Company rela-
tive to streetear transfers has been received
and its contents carefully noted.
We fully agree with you, as to the superior
advantages afforded by the excellent street
car transfer system of San Francisco: and we
believe that its benefits are appreciated by
this community. Furthermore, it is indis-
putable that the traffic in transfers is not oplv
wrong in principle, but also demoralizing in
its effects. This illegitimate traffic should GER
tainly be stopped.
The main point, however, in our communi.
cation that in granting transfer privileges
no special discrimination should exist against
Kearny street. We respectfully contend that
similar transfer privileges should be given to
the patrons of the Kearny-street electric lines
are now enjoyed on parallel lines. 1t does
not seem equitable, even under existing con.
ditions, that Kearny street, which heretofore
has been the leading retail business streer
of this City, should now be entirely deprived
of transfer privileges. Nor do we think that
If such transfer privileges were granted to
Kearny street it would materially aggrayate
the consequences of the traffic in transfers of
which you rightfully complain.
AT any rate we feel that the Market-street
Railway Company should at least restore the
transfer privilege from the Mission to NORTH
Beach and vice versa that existed before the
electric line was introduced. 1t is stated by
one of our members, Mr.. Frank Maskey that
definite promises were made to him by nartieS
claiming to represent your company that the
transfer privilege would be continued on
Kearny street, provided the electric system !
was allowed on that street. Thereupon. he !
and others assisted in securing the consent Of
the property-owners and merchants along
Kearny street to the proposed change in the |
restraining injunction was then withdrawn.