The San Francisco call., 1899-09-17
A PLAIN POLITICAL JOB.

HE legislative satellites of Dan Burns demand
that an extra session OF the Legislature shall be
called, nor to send their patron to the Federal
Scnate via the route, but in order that the
Erooman street Improvement act may be amended
and re-enacted. They fall to weeping and wailing
whenever the subject OF streets and sewers is
toned According to them, unless extra session
is convened to amend this statute there will be no
mrre eclpses OF the moons wheat will not sprort
next year. fruit and grapes will fail, the mines will
peter cuc and the Lord will suspend the transit OF
Venus until more opportune season.
This argument is senile, and is talked and written
for gudgcons Within year and three months the
Legislature will assemble in regular session. That is
a very short period. The State has been many
longer time without a statute under which the
struc;ion OF streets and sewers was compulsory In
1881 the Supreme Court declared the street law OF
1876 unconstitutional, and not until 1885 that
an act was passed providing practicable method OF
carving on public work In the interim streets and
sewers throughout the State built by the people
by private contract The thing may be done
now There is nothing to prevent property-owners
who desire improve their property from calling in
a contractor and ordering him to build according to
legal specifications, in which event the work will be
accepted by the government.
But even if this were not all gospel truth the fact
the Vrooman act unconstitutional. Our Mexican
fellow citizens may have fear that when the OF
the Petaluma Paving Company gets before that
tribunal some such catastrophe will happen; but
to all intents and purposes the Vrooman act is still
in force Moreover in the case OF Hornung vs.
Mccarthy, decided on the 9Th inst, the court ex-
pressy lodged the point raised in the Petaluma
and held street assessment under the Vrooman act
valid and enforceable Nor the constitutional
issue raised in the latter overlooked. A certi-
fed copy OF the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in the case of Norwood vs. Baker comprised
a part Of the record
Mccarthy was the owner Of lot on a hill in South
San Francisco Under the Vrooman act the Super
vsors through the eminence and assessed
the cost according the front foot" plan upon the
adjacent property. Mccarthy was deemed to have
been damaged the extent of $780, but he was as
sessed for benefits" nearly five times that sum- He
was consequently left with lot forty feet in the air
and bill to pay amounting to more than the value
of his property.
If ever there horrible example of the uncon-
stitutionaity OF the front foot method OF street as
sessment here was one. Yet the Supreme Court held
the proceedings valid on the ground that Mccarthy
should have brought injunction to restrain the
work Having remained quiescent while the con-
tractor executed the Improvement and paid for il,
the thought it not constitutional to pick
the latters pocket by the indirect process of law
suit
Why will not the court take the same view of other
cases which come up under the ruling OF the Federal
tribunal in Norwood vs. Baker? If it does SO. what
necessity is there for calling the Legislature together
to amend the Vrooman act? Street improvement
and sewer building will go until njunctions are
procured to stop them and if the injunctions are sus
tanned what harm can result? True, few streets
may remain unimproved and few sewers may not
be built until 1901 but in all where the property
owners permit the work to actually commence they
will have to pay the bill.
All this makes it clear that the demand OF
Mexican fellow-citizens for extra session of the
Legislature is political job Will they with this
transparent argument be able to pull the wool the
eyes OF the people? We shall see