The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-16
FAVORED The
new CHARTER
The Association of Improve
ment Clubs Takes
Action.
AFTER LONG DEBATING.
Opposition to the Sale of the
Geary-Street Railway
Franchise.
WILL BE FOUGHT IN COURT.
A Committee Appointed TO Collect
Funds to Pay for Injunction
Proceedings.

The San Francisco Association OF In
provement Clubs met last night st B'nai
Birth Hall. There was a large representa-
tive attendance from all parts Of the City.
George R Fletcher of the Richmond I'm
provement Club occupied the chair until
James D. Phelan. the president. arrived.
DR.. Rottanzi asked If the meeting was
not special one to consider the Geary
street franchise. The chair informed him
That that was not the whole purpose Of
the session Wnereupon Leon Samuels
presented the following report:
TO the President and Members Of TIE Associated
improvement Clubs Of San FrGacisoo: Your CON-
mittee, TO whom was referred the question SIS 70
what course should be pursued by this sssocia-
non in relation 70 the Gesry-stIeet franchise,
respecI fully submit the following report:
Your committee after 3 careful examination
OF the questions involved in the grant OF said
franchise Is OF the opinion that II IS beyond
the power OF the Board OF Supervisors 10 make
such grant, and that in view of the circum-
stances surrounding the attempt 70 grant such
franchise, the same would De void Tor the fol-
1. The franchise purportS TO run for period
OF fifty years from the date OF the issuance
thereof. As former Board OF Supervisors OF
this City and County have slready granted s
franchise over the same road which viii not
expire until about seven years from the pres
ent time, the Board OF Supervisors have no
present franchise TO grant and Tor that res
son, said franchise would be void.
?. As said conIem plated grant Is therefore
not the grant OF present night, but the grant
OF e right which necessarily takes effect in
the future, and as the same carries no present
interest whatever, the Board OF Supervisors
would exceed its powers IN granting il ana
the same would therefore be OF no force o.
effect.
B. Thst the terms and conditions upon
which bids are TO be made for said grant is sn
evasion snd violation Of the spirit and intent
of the laws under which bids sre made i'm
perstiye. An examination OF the proposed
I oil y Dz--n q har z
is intended 20 prevent ana sTlhe oompe tition
and 10 conhne the bidding 10 The owners OF
the present franchise or their repress1 tatiyes.
said proposal provides that the purchaser of
/ the franchise must begin WORK within one
year, and complete the same within three
years from the date Of tie passage OF the Or
This makes It impossible for any one but the
owners of the present franchise 10 fuinll the
| conditions OF the bid, as such owners alone
are in possession and entitled 10 the possession
| Of said roso for period OF about seven years
| from date, and no one could construct any i'm
/ proye1nents in said road or comply with the
| Conditions OF SSid franchise without the con-
! sent Of such owner.
| 1. That the condition that no bid should be
accepted unless accompanied by the fun
/ amount bid Is an unusual, onerous and IN
reasonable requirement
DE-. Rottanzi moved that the report be
received and the subject matter discussed.
| During the consideration of the Gesry-
| street franchise this motion was carried.
report on the abolition OF the "ratiler
test" as presented by 8 special COMMITTEES.
This report stated that the red rock ordi-
! nance and RATHER test created an oppres-
sive monopoly and ought 70 be repealed
The committee had, therefore, prepared
g petition which il held should 0e signed
by AZ least 100 property-owners- This
petition should De presented TO the Super
visors by 81 least twenty earnest represen-
tative citizens.
It was recommended in the report that
the rattler test be repealed as 10 all streets
west of Valencia ana Thirteenth 70 Market
street 10 ap Ness avenue, themes TO Bay
street 10 the bay; also as TO all streets
south Of Army and Coluss streets; also
as 10 sll the rock used II construction OF
sidewalks and on the roadway OF all
streets less than forty feet wide.
L J. Dwyer moved that the committee
on law and legislation be given power 10
receive money 10 be used in deiraving ex-
penses of an injunction suit, and also to
act in the matter.
Leon Ssmuels amended, that 3 special
committee be appointed 10 collect funds
and that the law and legislation commit
tee be given power to act The chair an
J. ]. McEwen.
The chair was added to the committee.
| Discussion OF the proposed charter was
| then taken up. On motion the principal
speakers were limited to fifteen minutes
each. J. NJ. Reynolds spoke against the
charter. He said that the charter now
presented was copied almost verbatim
from the charter defeated by the people OF
San Francisco in 1857.
Il was due TO his views on municipal
ownership OF public utilities that he was
led to study the proposed charter. Under
the present law several cities of California
| have obtained their water works or lights,
and are now securing public utilities He
saw defect in the new charter in the
provision that the City might own its
pablo utilities IL cheaper than furnished
by corporations.
Again, the charter provides that the
votes OF a1Ee Supervisors must Be had &c
get public ownership instead of eight as al
! present.
He thought that the proposed charter
showed its hssfy construction in giving
the Mayor almost unlimited power. The
removal OF clerks by the Mayor on com
| plant under oath violated civil service
laws, and he favored civil service. Again,
the charter did not make any City officials
elective.
f. W. Dohrmann, president of the Mer-
Chants Association, said that, IN its efforts
20 better the material conditions of San
Francisco, the association had found in the
charter the desired quality. Any opposi-
ton 70 IL came from personal eonsidera-
tinns, but not one single instance of oppo-
sition 10 the charter as ! whole vas pre-
scented
II the charter be an improvement, SIS 3
whole, over the present laws, the Mer.
chants Association says, Lets have it. .
Nj Reynolds. sincere as 9 reformer and s
citizen, was like the rank and file o:
oblectors 10 the charter; he objected 70
: one feature-the fact that the new charter
! did not provide for municipal ownership
! OF public utilities.
! Daniel Sullivan declared that the char
ter was not framed in the interest Of the
. people OF San Francisco, but il really was
. "a gigantic measure formulated by few
. men in the Interest OF certain interests "
he then asked, as Mr.. Dohrmann had
! stated that the curse of the City govern
! nent was The spoils of Office, what If the
Mayor were corrupt. what could the char.
! ter then do2 The charter provided dismissal
OF corrupt officials, but not Tor that OF 8
corrupt Mayor.
NJ. Il Hecnt stated that the remarks OF
: the last speaker that the charters trainers
: worked in the interest Of anything cor
rups, Was unQualiEedly false.
de was Kramer Of the charter and