The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-29
THE STREET RAILWAY STEAL.

/
steal, which the Board OF Supervisors elected by a
preponderance OF votes in the entire municipality is
expected to ratfy to-day their denunciaon is unani-
nous What does this mean? 1t means an over
whelninp preponderance OF public sentiment against
the outrage preponderance OF the men who own the
property and pay the taxes in San Francisco
In 1881 and in succeeding years the Common Coun-
Gil OF this city corrupt and was owned by rotten
politicians In 1886 the Board of Supervisors, estab-
lished bv the Consolidation Act was indescribably
purchasable and low But in 1890 all previous expert
ence has been transcribed The railroad Supervisors,
one and all, belong to pachydermatous breed Their
skins are so thick that if they thrown into den
OF lions or d blazing furnace their moral sensbilities
would remain torpid They the nearest approach
that has yet been discovered to absolute impervious
ness They encrusted with the railroad cutice and
are proud OF the branded covering that them
with degradation.
1t has been demonstrated that no Supervisor can
vote for the tangled mass Of franchises and privileges
untelgble except the initiated, that Super
vsors have been ordered to turn to the monopo-
~ without confessed dishonesty And this fact is in
way affected by the parade on Friday last before
the Street Committee of property owners who justly
desire increased railway facilities in the southeastern
part of this metropolis Some OF these gentlemen be
long the living stauary that Mr.. Huntington occa
sonalv uses to produce an impression of popular
sentiment that has real existence. But their de-
mands are nevertheless legitimate and in due time and
in the right way ought to be met 1t does not
follow that while asking for the relief to which they
entitled they that, under the guse OF pro-
noting necessary public improvement, the reslduary
interests of the municipality in its streets and in the
easements necessarily employed in transportation
should be gratuitously delivered Mr.. Huntington.
generally aOOreciated
and which has excited the community almost to fren
~ that seven of the existing Supervisors constitute
Board of Registration for railroad decrees the Mayor
and the FIVE honest municipal representatives are not
helpless Time is the of this nefarous business,
and law which even railroad audacity cannot disregard
favors the public interest 1t has been vituperatvey
declared by the blatant advocates OF this monsrous
nquity that the law prohibiting the granting OF street
railway franchises or privileges within 90 days OF
general election has been repealed This statement is
false. The act of February "a 1893, which not only
covers this point but also prevents the transfer OF
those privileges and franchises for seventy days after
an election is independent statute which does not
conflict with any other legislation and therefore, is OF
binding force.
1t is of course the duty of the City and County At
torney to advise the Board OF Supervisors of the ex
sting law II he is consulted he will probably tell the
ndurated seven who unfortunately in one respect do
not represent the united seven of Wordsworth's poem,
that they cannot confer railroad franchise priv
ege without the concurrence OF the Mayor without
nine votes to override his veto. Section oS of the
Consolidation Act enacts that every ordinance
luton providing for "the granting of any privilege or
involving the appropriation OF public property which
covers all the applications OF the Market Street Railway
Company shall before it takes effect be presented
to the Mayor for approval and the act OF March 80,
1903 cOmpels nine Supervisors to unite before veto
can be defeated In the garbage crematory suit be
fore Judge Morrow he held Professionally that, under
the act OF March g. 1893 the signature OF the Mayor
an order or resolution granting franchise or privi
ege was not required. Under that law, clearly dis
tinguishabe from the act OF March 10, 1897, the
Board after advertisement was compelled to make an
award to the highest bidder But, in the first place
the attention of that distinguished juris most likely
had not been directed TO a decision of the Supreme
Court OF this State mentioned in this article that will
furnish controlling rule for Federal tribunal; in
the second place the act OF 1893 applies to conditions
upon which exclusive franchises privileges can be
granted and not merely to the method of procedures
and in the third place the act OF March g, 1897, with
draws the compulsory requirements of the earlier law
and authorizes the rejection of all bids It's language
this subject, establishing discretion in which the
Mayor must be recognized, is very precise: PRO
Vded further, tfat the governing power may reject
any all bids" And again, that in the discretion of
such Board governing other legislative body all
bids may be set aside and rejected And section of
that act in directing that upon proper application the
Attorney General shall institute proceedings forfeit
unused franchises, includes the Mayor as governing
power"
Authority fully confirms the view The Call has sug-
gested Of the right OF the Mayor to pass upon such
orders and resolutions before the Board of SUI
pervisors to-day. In the case of the County of San
Diego versus Sieert, published in 81 California Re
ports page 800, the Supreme Court confirmed the
proposition OF Judge Field, which had acquired the
force of axiom, that, in respect municipal gov
ernments the mode of legislation was the measure of
the power In the case of Jacobs the Board of ST.
pervisors, California Reports pages it was
held that in fixing water rates, the signature OF the
Mayor was unnecessary. This decision has been wide
ly msinerpreted 1t based entirely upon the fact
that this kind of quasi-judcia legislation the
State Constitution conferred the authority exclusively