The San Francisco call., 1899-06-11
LET THE SUPERVISORS MEET.

NN January g. 1900, by unanimous vote the
| J Board OF Supervisors passed a resolution
- designating each Monday at p. m as the
time for its weekly meeting But for this resolution
as on Monday May 20 1900, the board adjourned
without day. The Call would have doubt OF the
solidty OF Mr. Phelan's opinion that, unless invited
by himself. there could be no further meeting until
the first Monday in July. But, in view OF the uncer-
tainty produced by this unanimous action, we con
slider that prudence requires the presence OF the
minority at the meeting that will unquestionably be
held by the majority tomorrow. II that meeting is
not called by the Mayor and should turn out to be
illegal the presence or the absence OF the minority
will not affect the result, II, on the contrary, it
should be held valid, then the presence OF the mi
uority, with one member OF the majority who may
be relied upon to vote with them against all OF the
railroads proposals that are indorsed by the
community, may avert great public disaster
There are many items OF routine business.
involving payments to honest citizens and mat
ters OF current Importance, that ought not
to be delayed unless the acceptance OF a supreme
risk IS essential to the public welfare But, in the
opinion OF The Call, there is no such crisis and as
has been already suggested the legality OF to-mor-
rows proceedings cannot be influenced by the num-
Der of Supervisors in excess of six who may be pres
ent We do not share the suspicious Of Supervisor
Kalben expressed in yesterdays issue OF one OF our
contemporaries. We believe he may be fully relied
upon to adhere to the position he has voluntarily and
openly assumed
Neither The Call nor the public has objected to the
extension OF proper railway facilities to the
northeastern part OF San Francisco within the nita
tions indorsed by the Merchants Association. That
does not require the resurrection OF dead franchises
by the extension OF electrical privileges on Geary
street between Taylor street and Grant avenue We
understand indeed, that the Market Street Railway
~><nspany has determined not to press that and va
other parts OF the wholesale scheme of conis-
cation that has been opportunely checked No
franchise privilege of any kind should be even
considered before the charter takes effect ex-
cept what is strictly essential meet the wants Of
the district to which we have alluded Beyond the
use OF electricity the Post street line, possibly the
franchise asked for a single block on Taylor
street between Geary and Post streets and further
the application OF electricity franchises already held
on Montgomery and Sansome streets there does not
appear to be the slightest need OF any further action
by the board at the present time Under no cir
cumstances-at any rate until the new charter
is operative-should any extensive franchise be
granted, and especially the franchise demanded on
Grant avenue between Geary and Bush streets and
down Bush street TO Sansome street. The entire con
nection needed to bring the northeastern section OF
the city and the Porero together are informed
can be made by the Post street line and its Mont
gomery street adjunct
We again suggest that the minority OF the board
the issue boldly and leave no loophole by their
absence to- morrow, for cavil or criticism The
nonopostic street railway grab apparently is al
ready beaten, and, in opinion can never be re-
vived