The San Francisco call., 1899-05-26


tricity as the motive power on various
branch lines south Of Market street were
favorably acted upon after Colonel Little
Of the Sutro electric road Mrs DR. Mer-
ritt and the attorney of the McKinstry
estate had voiced their objections to sec
ttons and of the odds and ends" fran
chlse colonel Little said it would be an
injustice to the Sutro road for the Board
OF supervisors to grant d franchise for a
parallel line in view of the fact that the
Sutro Company was having hard work
make both ends meet. Mrs. DR.. Merritt
and Attorney McKnstry pointed out that
the unnamed street over which the Mar
ket street Company asked for a franchise
was not public thoroughfare but a Dri-
Nate driveway, belonging to the Sutro es-
tate 1hey contended that the Supervi-
SErs had no right to grant franchise
'HtVuEn theIr property;
Attorney Foulds said the granting of
the franchise could do no harm as if it
passed through private propertv the Mar
ket Street Company would be Obliged to
secure the permission of the owners there
or or purchase the property before build
ing the road. and the committee took this
view of the matter
The. petition of the Southern Pacific for
permission TO lay double tracks through
the streets of the city whereon it is at
present operating a single-traCk steam
railroad called forth a vigorous protest
from residents and property owners of
the Mission
Secretary Sullivan of the Mission and
Potrero Improvement clubs and a dele
cation of members of that organization
did not hesitate to state their minds freely
on the subject.
I'VE ask you to postpone this hearing
Tor one week. said Secretary Sullivan,
in order that we may have sufficient
time to prepare petition protesting
against the granting of this franchise
asked for by the Southern Pacific. We
are not fighting the Southern Pacific and
we have a right to be heard in this mat
~, - .. .. -. . >, .4.-
rupted Supervisor Holland. I'VE are
ready to hear you"
Mr.. Sullivan protested that he and his
fellow protestants were not prepared, as
they knew nothing of the franchise pc
tition until Monday. He contended that
the Southern Pacific was a nuisance to
property owners along the line of its
road in this city. but with double track
the nuisance and the danger to residents
would be more than doubled, with abso-,
lutely no cOrnpensating features.
You can come before the board and
state your objections next Monday" sug-
gested Chairman Aigeltinger
THAT will be too late. They should be
given a chance to be heard before this
committee next week. said Byington.
Il wish to state, said Attorney Foulds,
that the Southern Pacific desires to con-
struct a double track for the purpose of
improving its service and to afford greater
protection TO its patrons and the resi-
dents OF the Mission district than can be
given them with the single track sys-
tenn"
"A double track will not give US greater
ad hd ohh 4Peeccc haa
promised for years to build road along
the bay shore and abandon it's present
route. The bay shore route is more di-
rect and if the company would keep its
promise and make use of the franchise
it secured for that route some years ago
our property would be enhanced in value
instead of being deprecated by reason Of
the noise and smoke and danger to life
and limb which follows from the present
outrageous condition of affairs"
Holland again suggested that there was
no good reason for delaying action and
Atgeltinger remarked that residents of
the Mission could rest assured that the
saw fit to file.
A. B. Mcguire was not satisfied with
the evident desire of the committee to
rush the matter through and place 1t in
the hands of the full board.
IF this franchise petition goes back to
the board with the recommendation of the
committee that it pass to print" he de-
cared, we will then have no chance to
state our objections effectively If you
90 not propose to postpone this hearing
until next week say so and we will do
Few of us present to-day and we are
not prepared to present our case fully.
The Southern Pacific asked for a similar
franchise from your predecessors and we
fought ii. The petition presented at that
time was refused. Now, If this board or
this committee proposes to ignore us and
protest we may make, we will have to
ADOPT some other means or method to
prevent the outrage. The Southern Pa
cine is already occupying land over
which it has no legal right Of way in
this city and IL is maintaining a double
track between Sixteenth and Eighteenth
streets Tor which 1t never asked the per-
mission of the city. We have kept silent
and endured present conditions a long
time, relying upon the promise of the
railroad to move It's track to the bay
shore which iG e., do
They never intend to occupy the present
right OF way permanently and we demand
an opportunity to be heard by you gem
tiemen at a time when we can be pre-
pared to furnish proofs Of our contentious
and arguments in support Of our protest
we we represent large section Of San
heard. we ask you 10 postpone this hear
ing until next week
Il have already told you we would hear
you next week" said the chairman The
delegation filed out and the committee
proceeded promptly to affix it's indorse-
ment to the petition recommending that
tne resolution acceding to the demands of
the Southern Pacific Company be passed
to print.
M. M. Estee appeared before the com
mittee and requested that some action be
taken on the proposed purchase by the
city of tract of land belonging to the
Carr estate on Twenty-fifth street. be-
tween the San Jose road and Guerrero
street. The property in question has been
claimed by the city, but the title appeared
to rest in the Carr estate, and PROPOSE
ton to sell for s12 600 was accepted by the
last Board of Supervisors, but the deal
was not consummated. A building on the
property encroaches on the street. and the
committee recommended that the pur-
chase be made.
r. c. de Boom appeared before the com
mittee to complain that Bosworth street
was almost impossible to vehicles be-
cause the Market Street Company has
taken twenty-five feet of the thirty-foot
street for the car tracks. He asked that
the railroad company be required to re-
duce the width of the sidewalks from
ten feet to eight feet. The COMMITTEES
promised TO make an investigation next
Wednesday.
The opposition to the passage of the
street railway franchises asked for by the
Market-street system received a stagger-
ing blow by the decisiorY rendered by
Judge Morrow Of the United States Cir
cult Court yesterday in the case of the
Sanitary Reduction Works of San Fran
cisco VS.. the California Reduction Com
pany ct al, in which he held that fran
chises granted by the Board of Supervis-
ors under the act of 1897 need not be
signed by the Mayor. In view of this de-
cision. the Mayor cannot interpose his
veto to prevent the granting of the fran
chises now before the board, and the
Siipervisors who are known to favor them
will be able to pass them in spite of the
exertions of the minority members