The San Francisco call., 1899-05-26
INJUNCTION IS
GRANTED IN THE
GARBAGE SUlT
Judicial Victory for the
Potrero CrematOry.
CIRCUIT COURT TAKES ACTION
MUST DUMP THEIR LOADS AT
THE CREMAToRY.
CIRCUIT COURT TAKES ACTION
Judge Morrow Decides That the In
stitution's Franchise Is Valid
and That It's Works Are Not
Nuisance.

| United States Circuit Judge Morrow
yesterday morning set at rest several
questions which have lately been troubling
| the scavengers of this city and their law
yers. He handed down an opinion in the
case of the Sanitary Reduction Works of
San Francisco VS.. the California Reduc-
ton Company of Colorado, which prac-
tically relegates the latter corporation o
! the limbo of broken and shattered Judi
cial timber
The California Reduction Company was
organized some time ago for the avowed
purpose of fighting the Potrero crematory
and in order to be able to carry its dis
| putes into the Federal Courts it incor-
porated under the laws of Colorado It's
| first dispute with it's rival garbage reduc-
| ing concern, however, seems to have re-
suited disastrously, since it appears that
| the decision of Judge Morrow yesterday
practically declares against it on all
| mooted points.
The California Reduction Company took
| the side of the scavengers in their disa-
greement with the crematory and offered
TO remove their garbage upon barges into
San Mateo County and dump it. This
! could be done no cheaper than the crema-
| tory In the Potrero now burns the mate
rial, but it was anything to defeat the
latter, and large numbers of the scaven-
| gers Joined the scheme and took their
refuse to the barges.
But the first load never left San Fran
cisco. The Sanitary Reduction Works ap-
piled to Judge Morrow and obtained an
injunction against the removal of the ma
| terlal from the county, claiming that un-
! der it's franchise it had the exclusive
right TO destroy all the refuse of the city
by fire. AT first the scavengers resisted,
but Judge Morrow fined a number of them
for contempt and ever since then the
barges have been tied up to Warren &
Malley's wharf, unusable and unused.
Both companies then went into court.
The Colorado concern denied all the
! equities contained in the bill of the Po-
| trero company and asked Judge Morrow
| to dissolve the Injunction Some evidence
was taken and the lawyers argued long
and vigorously. Yesterday Judge Morrow
! brought the trouble to a conclusion by re-
fusing to dissolve the injunction and hold
ing all the leading points in favor of the
The reduction company claimed that the
| franchise of the Sanitary Reduction
! Works of San Francisco was invalid; that
its business is public nuisance and that
in the interest of the people it should be
suppressed Judge Morrow decides that
the franchise is valid and that the works
| the points around which the litigation re-
volVed their decision in the manner stated
| constitutes substantial Victory for the
crematory company. Moreover, the
courts refusal TO dissolve the injunction
continues the embargo upon the barge
scheme and practically renders it USE
less.
When it is considered that Judge Nor
rows ruling proceeds upon the broad
ground that the right to burn garbage in
this city belongs to the Potrero crematory
it will be seen that the opposition to that
method of disposing of it, whether ema-
mating from corporations or individuals,
is to all intents and purposes. ended.
Speaking of the crematory's franchise
Judge Morrow says that the fact that it
was not signed by the Mayor after It's
sale by the Supervisors signifies nothing,
signature. The court says:
In the case of the People vs.. Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County, l22
California, 42l, it was decided by the Su-
preme Court of this State that fran
chise for the construction and mainte
nance of a wharf should have been grant
ed under the act of 1888.
The court said, speaking of the act
above quoted:
This language is broad in its terms. 1t
is difficult to imagine language broader
in it's significance and more explicit upon
the subject with which the act is dealing
1t includes the franchise here before us. "
And again: ut is insisted that the board
made grant of the franchise under GER
tain provisions of the Political Code. and
therefore it is claimed that the act of the
Legislature passed in 1893 cannot furnish
test upon which to base decision as to
an exercise or non-exercise OF judicial
function on the part of the board in grant
maintained. This FRANCHISE should have
been granted by the Supervisors under
the provisions of the act OF 1893,
preme court respondents contention in
regard to the invalidity of order No 1866
as based solely upon the act of 1893 cannot
be sustained.
Continuing, Judge Morrow says that un-
der the constitution the Supervisors pos
sess the, power to apate nuisances and
do this they may let franchise to dis
pose of garbage or any other offensive
thing. The cases of Aipers VS.. the City
Fertilizer Company VS.. Lambert CAS- Fed,
45S) are cited to sus tain this doctrine
Moreover, the Judgment OF the Supervis-
ors as to what is a nuisance is conclusive
and they declare that garbage is a nui-
sance and must be disposed of in a GER
tain way; that way must be followed and
cannot be denominated nuisance in turn
by the courts Concerning the charges of
the crematory Judge Morrow says:
'The law as established by the Slaugh-
ter-house cases, 16 Wall, 36, is clearly de-
cisive as to the question of the right of a
municipality to impose reasonable
charge for the removal of nuisance, and
it is not claimed in the present case that
the charge imposed by the ordinance is
excessive The court in that case said:
"'Unless, therefore, it can be NAM
tained that the exclusive privilege grant
ed by this charter to the corporation is
beyond the power of the Legislature of
Louisiana, there can be no just excep-
ton to the validity of the statute. And in
this respect we are unable to see that
these privileges are especially .odious or
objectionable The duty imposed as a con-
sideration for the privilege is well defined
and it's enforcement well guarded. The
prices or charges to be made by the COM
pany are limited by the statute and we
are not advised that they are, on the
whole, exorbitant or unpust'
Respondents maintain that their acts
do not injure the complainant; but if COM
plainant is entitled to the whole of the
garbage created in the city and county of
is obvious that the continual shipment of
1T must necessarily pe injurious to its in
terests anu 10 oegrss WniGn =. would rem
ate under the circumstances.
LET preliminary injunction issue in
accordance with the prayer of the bill of
complaint"