The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-07
A Sum in the Aggregate of
$1,000 Is the Amount
Said to Be Due.
THE LAW REGARDING THE CASE
Peter Seculovich Says That He Will
Get to the Bottom of the Affair
in Short Time.

"The Market-street Railway Company
owes the City OF San Francisco something
in the neighborhood of 100000" said
Peter T. Seculovich yesterday, land aside
from that the line running from the inter-
section Of Post and Montgomery streets,
along and upon Post street to Dupont, on
Dapont TO Market. to FIT to Townsend,
from Townsend across Mission Creek on
Kentucky street, ana over Kentucky street
10 the San Francisco and Bay View race
course. belongs 10 San Francisco, accord
ing TO an act passed at the sixteenth ses-
sion Of the California State Legislature, an
act approved April >, 1866, and amended
in parts in 1868.
Il have made this statement many times
and CD veral occasions had taken adyan-
tage of legal advice and find that the law
is clear on the point involved. Section 8
of An act granting to certain persons
therein named the right to lay railroad
track along certain streets in the City and
County Of San Francisco reads:
Sec. s. The owners OF said railroad are required
to sell, tranSI T and convey the same, together
with the cars that may be employed thereon,
20 the City and County OF san Francisco at any
line after the expiration OF fifteen years after
he completion OF the same upon demand
being made 10 that effect ~ the said City and
County, and upon the payment to said parties
Of said ity and County of The appraised value
Of the same, said appraisal 10 be made by FIVE
commissioners.
NO demand was made upon the road by
the City and County OF San Francisco, and
the franchise, which was given for twenty
five years, therefore expired. The road
was completed in 1870, so the franchise
had run its existence out in July, 1895, and
to-day that line and its entire assets belongs
to the City of San Francisco.
That Is not the least OF the debt. There
was $50 license upon each car imposed III
the same act. and not cent of it has ever
been paid. That section touching upon
the license reads:
Sec. 10 The owners OF said railroad shall pay
to the City ana County OF san Francisco the
sum OF 500 per annum as license upon each
EAR used by them upon said railroad, which
payment shall be made quarterly 10 the said
City and County.
There are certain ways of collecting this
money, and it is the duty of the officials
who are drawing salaries from the CITY
and County of San Francisco to attend to
the matter as soon as it is possible to do
so. l am OF the opinion that a great deal
of money would be found to be due the
City If some of the old statutes were gone
into and something like this would be
cropping up all the time.
''When the City reserved the right to
purchase it was probably done so merely
as matter of form, and in such cases such
rights are seldom taken advantage of. Dur
ing all the years that the line has been in
operation it has made handsome thing
out of ii, and yet the company has never
seen ut to pay the license imposed upon it
by the law OF California. There were not
many cars on the line when it first began
operations, bu. that part of the CITY has
been settling up fast and it has become
necessary to add more rolling stock. In
the regular order OF things the City's
revenue would naturally be increased had
the provisions of the law been complied
with.
ut has been claimed that no one came
to collect the money. but that does not re-
move the debt, and it is still due the CITY
of San Francisco. ii at any time, as /
have SAID before, the Supervisors released
the road from the debt, they had no right
to take such steps, ana the action would
be illegal.
81 do not propose to let this matter rest
until l have sifted it to the bottom and
found ont just what this City has coming.
L am heavy taxpayer and help to paw
the officials of San Francisco; therefore |
Will insist upon seeing that there is some
money in sight except that which is taken
from the individual taxpayers. I have
been in San Francisco nearly forty-two
years, and feel just interested enough to
fight for it until the taxpayers get their
rights. 1t is not just that big corporations
and companies should be released from
their debts while we are expected to put
up annually.
III the Bay View road by any hook or
crook has been released from its obIiga-
ton 1 intend to find it out, and also who
engineered the job and how it was done.
II they were not released l intend to see
that they pay what they owe. In either
event something like clear explanation
must be forthcoming. Citizens have GER
tain rights at are due them, and I will
get all the attention l demand when the
time comes to have this matter settled. 1t
is more Serious than one would suppose at
a glance, and on behalf of thousands of
other taxpayers | want to know what is to
be the result. There is more yet to come
of this question and have got plenty of
time to fight it out to finish"