The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-12-19
TEL EPHONE FRAUD
BY the imposition of a Quarterly Tax Of One
Dollar Upon Every NickeI-n-the-Sot In
strument in Use the City Will Realize
Handsome Annual Income From Them.

day and found 10 favor the telephone
company Mr. Aigeltinger handed up 90 b.
read written favorable opinion by other
counsel.
Although the telephone company fought
bitterly At every step the progress OF Oh.
resolution il did not carry its battle int
the board rooms Yesterday. When NJ.
Aigeltinger called the measure up 10 pre-.
cipitated no debate and the Only Opp0si-
tiOn TO 10 was "a weak play Tor more tim.
made by ByingtOn OF the minority M
Byington waited until the rOllcall fa|
started and then interrupted with Oh
suggestion that as Mr.. Lane had decide
the resolution 20 be unconstitutional D.
would lie advisable 20 prepare auother
along the lines he dictated. An emphatt
demand by Kalben that the rollcall con
tinue sent Mr.. Byington % his seat anil
when the affirmative votes began rtackirl
up he Welded % popular pressure and
got I'm with Aigeltinger. Holland, kalheu
and the rest on the peoples side o. On
controversy.
Those who made good their prediction
PLEDGES and made the peoples fight in Oh.
face Of the combined influence OF the cor.
poratiOns were Aigeltlnger Attrid{e
Black. Collins. Heyer. Holland. Lack
mann. Perrault. Kalben. Deasy and BY.
ingtOn. Consistent with his usual COursf
I'm favor OF the corporations Phelps vote
no.
Lanes opinion. which was 50 generally
Ignored by both Democratic and ReDubli.
can members Of the board. was 90 the e..
feet that the proposed resolution was Tie
Telephones alone and IN that was guilt
OF Illegal discrimination. Mr.. Lane agree,
that al telephones might be taxed, bu
held that but one kind could not . Legal.
" licensed Upon the reading of the ON
Cial opinion Mr. Aigeltinger demanded tn
reading Of the following opinion. sent tl
by mis- private attorney:
December r. 1859
Z H. AlgeltnEer Member ~ the Board
Supervfsors-pear Sir. Replying % your quer'
relative 10 the powers 81 the Board % super
viscrs 20 pass and adopt the CrAnance on th'
18th day OF November, 1889 presented o. you
beard and o. which copy is hereto attlched
I beg 20 say.
The Board Of Supervisors of the CITY an
county OF San Francisco has the power. p
ordinance 10 license and regulate all such cal
irgs trades and empl0yments as the uuhit
good may require 20 be ucense ana regulated
and as are not prohibited by law. etc.
The board has the general power % adopt
make and enforce within the limits ~ thi'
CITY and county all necessary local police. san.
itary and other laws and regulations
The power sought 20 be exercised In the or
dirance alluded % Is within the province 90
the Board ~ Supervisors.
The right OF the governing body ~ a munich
pality TO license and regulate trades. employ
ments and callings within the territorial limit
has never been questioned
The device adopted by the corporation 90
persons referred % In the proposed ordinanrf
il an addition % the original mode o. bus.
ness contemplated BY the corporations and
persons referred %. enhances their pronts anl
takes the place OF collector.
conclude therefore. by saying % you that
the proposed ordinance is valid. may be proper
Is adopted by your Board % Supervisors ana
can be enforced. Yours very truly, .
WAL J. TUsKA-