The San Francisco call., 1896-08-26
WOULON' 7 DEFEND THEM
Baggett Would Tell the Board
of Supervisors to Come
Out Openly.
Argument in the Geary-Street Fran.
chise Ended and the Case
Submitted.

The Geary-street franchise matter was
submitted to Judge Daingerield yesterday
afternoon at the conclusion of arguments
which occupied the entire day. 1t was in
timated by counsel of both sides that they
desired the opportunity to submit addi-
tional authorities within the next ten or
fifteen days, and the court remarked that
proper allowance would be made for
them.
The arguments on the writs of certiorari
and prohibition were concluded with the
morning session, but Judge Daingerield
announced that he would reserve his de-
cision on them until after the third and
last writ, that of prohibition, had been
discussed and would then consider them
all together.
The three writs were issued to George
Fletcher, private citizen, to restrain the
Board OF Supervisors from opening bids on
a Geary-street franchise to run for fifty
years after 1903, the year in which the
Southern Pacific Company's present privi.
lege on that street will end. 1t was that the
alleged peculiar terms of the proposition
and the early date at which it is ade. were
calculated to give the present owners of the
franchise an opportunity to defraud the
people by making what might appear as
the largest bid while in fact it would re-
suit in an ultimate lode to the City treasury.
The bids were to be so much money for
the privilege and such percentage of the
gross receipts of the road.
Mr.. Fletcher dou bled the purity of the mo-
tives of the Board of Supervisors in devils
ing such terms, and he was suspicious of
an innocent looking scheme with G. B.
Huntington behind it. He thought he
saw plan to handicap the honest bidder.
The railroad might put in the biggest bid
and offer the highest per cent of gross re-,
ceipts, hold the franchise simply to pre-
vent competition, then run cars at infre-
quent intervals and rely upon traffic on
its adjacent parallel lines, and really pay
the city very much less in the long run
than smaller bid by an honest bidder
would have amounted to.
To each of the writs the City and
County Attorney, acting in defense
day offered these three objections: First,
that the complaint did not furnish sutfi-
cient facts; second, that the court did not
have jurisdiction in the case; third, that
the plaintiff, being simple taxpayer and
unable to show that he was to be person
ally injured, had no capacity to sue. He
claimed that the writs were inconsistent,
and that if one of them applied the others
could not. A great many cases were cited
and authorities read in support OF a
lengthy argument against the three writs.
Attorneys Baggett and Samuels for the
complainant denied that there was any
inconsistency. "But we don't care" re-
marked Baggett, under what writ it is
classed, under what head it comes; If the
Board of Supervisors steals iudicially,
legislatively or Enthusiastically it makes
no difference, the people who elected them
to the position of trustees should have the
power to restrain them. l tell you, Mr..
Brobeck," he declared, in reply to ques-
tlon as to what he would do were he counsel
for the other side, II would not make
defense of the Board of Supervisors if
were City and County Attorney. would
not lnterpose demurrer. l would say,
Show the people that you have nothing to
hide, you are trustees of the people Ii
were defending private individual I
would, OF course, make defense.
DO you say taxpayer is not injured
by the difference between 81 900, 900 and
$4,000 year in the City's revenues?
IF wrong be contemplated we think it
should be prevented, and that this court
has jurisdiction to prevent it. Inasmuch
as there is q charge Of fraud on the part
OF the Board OF Supervisors, that claim is
sufnclent in itself to warrant this court in
granting all these writs.
Mr. Samuels cited the case OF the Spring
Valley Water Company VS.. the Board of
CuPC1 fiSOrS, WnefS tIe pupcIAOI OOuIb
held that the court had power to interfere
II on its face the contemplated act was
fraudulent and corrupt. The writs flied
on which the judgment was entered were
submitted by Attorney Herrin, then en-
ployed by the water company, but now in
the employ of the Southern Pacific Com
pany.
The citation of that case apparently an
noyed the Southern Pacific attorney, j. e.
Foulds who up TO that time had sat 81
lently at the table near Brobeck rolling
pencil between his thum bs and cultivating
smile bounded on the north by pair OF
gold spectacles, on the south by shirt
bosom ana on the east and the west by the
walls of the courtroom.
AT the conclusion OF The argument Judge
Dalngerfield, reviewing as Is his custom
the points as he understands them, ex-
pressed the opinion. liable, he said, to
change on more mature deliberation, that
the bid on the franchise is untenable. and
that the defect, if there be defect, is iu-
risdictional.