The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-08-21
TORRENTS Of TALK
ON THE FRANCHISE
Arguments on the Demur-
rers to Fletcher's =
Petitions.
NO DECISION REACHED.
Supervisors Denounced as Being
Anxious to Betray the
City.
RAILROAD ATTORNEY PRESENT
The Discussion of the Injunction Will
Be Commenced on Tuesday
Morning.

road franchise.
All day long the untiring attorneys
talked, and when, late in the evening,
prodded to action by the increasing de-
mands OF healthy appetite, Mr.. Brobeck
announced that he did not care to argue
the matter further, the weary Judge heaved
sigh of relief and asked when the lawyers
would continue.
With all the hours of maxiIlary music
only the argument as to the writs had been
completed. The injunction is yet to be
heard from. As the battle over it will be
as wordy as that over the writs, Judge
Daingerfeld is in imminent danger of be-
ing talked to death next Tuesday when
the torrent of words will again be I'M
loosed.
Yesterdays proceedings were enlivened
at times by good-natured tits between
Mr.. Baggett and Mr.. Brobeck. Then
az ain, rencounters not so conspicuous took
place.
The morning session was consumed in
arguments on the subject matter of the
com plants. The point raised that the
letter of the law had not been complied
with when the bids for the franchise were
advertised for was discussed.
The statute says that the bids must be
advertised for on ten consecutive days,
whereas in the present case two legal holi-
days interviewed. Then the wording of
the resolution, which specified that 2 per
cent of the gross receipts OF the company
securing the franchise must be annually
paid into the city treasury, was declared
to be catch to shut out all bidders but
the Geary-street, Park and Ocean Railway
Company. The same was alleged of the
clause which provides that work on the
road for which the franchise is issued
must be begun within a year and COM
pleted within three years. The question
as to whether the Board of Supervisors
would act judicially or legislatively in
granting the franchise was also disagreed
upon.
Mr.. Baggett and Mr.. Samuels in their
arguments claimed that the Supervisors
would act judiciously and also said that
the entire attempt to grant the franchise
was an attempt at stupendous fraud an
attem pt to sell for few thousand dollars
franchise worth a million. On the con-
trary, Brobeck said that the Supervisors
should be commended for endeavoring to
secure percentage of the gross receipts
of the com pany, which would aggregate
in twenty-five years much more than
million dollars.
The question of Mr. Fletcher's interest
in the suit as a taxpayer was talked over
and resulted in a bit OF repartee being
exchanged between Mr.. Baggett Mr.
Foulds and Mr.. Brobeck. Baggett claimed
that Fletcher is an interested party and
that it is so alleged in the petitions.
Foulds disputed this statement saying
that the allegation was contained in only
the petition for an injunction, which was
not then on argument.
Baggett admitted that Fletcher was in
terested only as a taxpayer in the price
realized for the franchise, whereupon
FouIds suggested that Baggett was trying
to mislead the court.
Perhaps the court is not so easily mis-
led as is the counsel, mildly suggested
Baggett. "At any rate, Mr.. Brobeck has
admitted that Fletcher is a party inter-
ested."
Foulds denied this. saying that if Mr..
Berbeck had done so, it was unintentlonal.
81 am surprised that Mr.. Foulds thinks
it necessary to explain Mr.. Brobeck's
action said Mr.. Baggett. ut seems to
me that there is remarkable harmony be-
tween Mr.. Foulds and the City's legal rep
resentative. May proceed, Mr.. Foulds ?"
Mr.. Baggett's argument filed the morn
ing session and overfowed into the after
noon proceedings. Immediately after
luncheon, refreshed and rejuvenated, he
began again. He started by referring to
the 2-per cent clause, and affirmed that it
was not contained in the original petition
of the railroad company, but had been
illegally inserted by the Supervisors with
out the assent of the petitioner.
The conditions of the bid, as set forth
in the advertisement, amount to viola
ton of the law, said he. .sfor the board
amended the application for the franchise
to the extent of the addition of a bid.
which the Supreme Court has held ilIe-
gal.
''How do we know, Continued the attor-
ney, that they do not want this franchise
for the purpose of shutting out compete
ton?
"There is street railroad in operation
along the proposed route, with franchise
that has seven years to run. The Super
visors have no right to grant another fran
chlse so long as that one is In operation.
Common-sense would not allow us
to permit stranger to come into
court and say that the owners of the old
franchise wish to abandon it. This whole
proceeding is shown, on its face, to be an
absurdity, for the conditions saw that
work on the new road must be commenced
within one year. There could only be one
bidder under such a condition, and it looks
very much to me as if the entire resolu-
ton was framed SO that such would be the
case.
II do not see how body OF honest man
after their attention had been drawn to
TINS TACT, could proceed as the Board of
Supervisors have done
What must We say when they REQUIRE
the City and County ATTORNEY to come
here and say, III is true we have tried to
dispose OF this franchise. We know that
we are ropblng the public, but what are
you going to do about it?' They do not
deny anything. They simply say, There
IS no law in the land to prevent the perne-
1Tatlon OF this villainy. But there IS.
There Is rem edy. There is ALWAYS a
remedy where there is wrong"
nat is your remedy" inquired Mr..
Broderick, smilingly.
"A writ OF certiorari," replied Baggett.
ne then went on to show. by quoting the
law and different authoritios, that the SUI
perylsors would be acting judicially in