The San Francisco call., 1908-08-08
CALHOUN WRITES
TO MAYOR TAYLOR
Defends Right of United Rail-
roads to MonopoIize End
of Market Street
Says City Is Trying to Force
Surrender of Privileges
Thirty Years Old

Patrick Calhoun. president of the
United Railroads, defending his rights
to monopolize transportation privileges
on the end of Market street, has writ
ten long reply to the open letter of
Mayor Taylor, in which the latter ex-
posed the subterfuges of the trolley
trust. Calhoun's letter follows:
August 0. 1908.
Hon. Edward Robeson Taylor. Mayor of the City
OF san Francisco.
Your open letter in the morning papers in re-
gard TO the operation Of the tracks of the SUIT
tween Sansome and the ferry demands an an
swer. When analyzed, the facts You give in
foundation for the statement made by you that:
The sole question is, shall the United Rail-
own wrong, and by trick and device be per
mitted 10 maintain, for number Of years. the
street railrosd monopoly on the lower part Of
franchise was granted ION the 18th day of Sep
tember. 1879. BY the board of supervisors
eessoTs GO sas ssd aseS sst ,ss s
down, maintain and operate for the term of
fifty years single or double track street rail-
road commencing at the city front Market
street, thence along Market street to Seventeenth
street F" This grant gave to the Market street
railway company the right TO operate it's cars
by horses or mules and expressly provided that
the city could also grant rights ON Market
street TOT nfe oiocks 10 one othef company and
You also stated that on November 8. 1879. the
Sutter street railway company, its successors
and assigns, was granted the right to construct.
lay down. maintain and operate for the term
OF 90 years q single double track street rail-
road, with all the necessary switches etc. COM
mencing at the civ front on Market street
thence along Market street to Sutter street. etc.
1ou also admit that this grant was made spe-
cincally upon the condition that the city could
grant TO other company and no more the
right 10 use the lower end of Market street for
the fact that this grant was made upon the
terms and conditions specified in the 499th sec
terms Of this section of the code the state per-
mitted city to grant the use Of its streets for
Eve blocks to two companies and prohibited it
from granting the use of any one OF its streets
TO more than two companies for five blocks.
This prohibition by the state upon the power of
its municipalities was not made for the benefit
of the railroad corporate but for the benefit
OF the general public, in the full recognition that
the subsection OF the streets of any city to the
serFitude Of more than two street railway lines
at time was calculated to endanger life and
limb materially increasing the risk OF accidents
and impairing effective service.
The point however. is not whether the state
WAS wise in its general policy. declared by
It's statute, which Is substantially stil in force,
or whether the supervisors were wise in 1879 in
making the two grants. which confessedly
hausted the power Of the city to grant other
but whether the United Railroads shared IN any
degree the responsibility for what you term a
monopoly then granted.
UNITED RAILROADS A SUCCESSOR
The United Railroads was organized in March
1902. p years and six months after the grant
of the Market street franchise. and % years and
four months after the grant Of the Sutter street
/ franchise. Long before the organization Of the
United Railroads bonds were issued by both the
Sutter street railway company and the Market
street railway their respective properties,
which bonds still outstanding. AS you state
e your letter, these grants were made to the
Market and Sutter street railway companies with
the express provision that they should pass to
| their successors and assigns. If you think that,
under the settled policy of the state
pressed in its statute, and Of the supervisors
expressed IN their grants 10 these companies. 1t
was uhwise and wrong TO limit the use of Mar
ket street between Sansome and the ferry TO two
companies You cannot charge this wrong to the
| United Railroads. The grants had been made.
as stated above. and had been in undisputed
use, ar the time the United Railroads
had a right, when they paid out TO the San
Francisco owners Of these properties than
twenty odd millions in cash, to rely upon the
unbroken policy Of this state declared by its
statute and the undisputed right of both
Market street between Sansome and the ferry
| as evidenced by their continued use for more
than 20 years.
What wrong did the United Railroads commit
IN making this purchases What deceit did it
praeticel Its purchase was known of all men
and its transactions were fair, open, honest and
legitimate Suppose it had never bought either
the Market street or the Sutter street line and
the Sutter street railway, operating its cars on
Sutter by electricity was today applying for
permission to operate it's cars on Market street
through to the ferry by the power, would
you demand from it surrender of the rights it
had secured under Its grant nearly 80 years ago Z
Having mOrtgaged that grant to its bond hold
ers. 1 ask you as lawyer II the Sutter street
railway would have the right to surrender it.
Was Ii wrong, IL a trick and device, for
when it sold portion of its roads to the United
Railroads, aud for the United Railroads when
it bought 10 do so in way that would main
tain unimpaired the whole property for the bene
ht Of the bond holders and stock holders of both
companies. Was it not, the contrary, the
duty, both ia morals and In law, for the direc-
tors and stock holders of the Sutter street rail-
way company and OF the United Railroads to do
everything in their power to protect the men
from when the Sutter street railway company
had borrowed money for the purpose of construct
ing It's road and without whose money the city
would not have received the benefit Of this
street car linef
CALL 1T A HOLDUP
| Now between the lines Of your letter runs
clear admission that the Sutter and Market
| street railway companies. If they had not sold
to the United Railroads. would have preserved
| the right 10 the exclusive use Of Market street
between sansome and the ferry. Why then
What justifcation can there be. NAV IN law and in
morals, TO hold up the United Railroads and
force II, when it desires to give the most
efhclent service to its patrons, to surrender
grants made long before it came into existence
and which were mortgaged by its predecessors
as well as by itself? Is II that the city would
receive less efficient service by operating with
electricity the sutter street cars on Market
In one passage you blame the United Railroads
| for having temporarily operated Its cars by
electricity and charge upon il a monstrous
wrong for having exercised this permission You
omit to state. however. the fact that the wire
over the outside north track was erected to aid
| in the reconstruction of the lower end OF Market
street and that from time to time was found
necessary to aid the city in building sewers
the tracks were shifted not only once but sew
eraI times at great expense and Inconvenience
! to the United Railroads; and that the wire over
the outside south track was never erected until
special permit for its erection had been granted
/ by your administration. Suffice Ii 10 say that no
1 rights have ever been claimed account OF
the erection of these wires, and that your ad-
ministration was quite content to continue tenn
porary permission for the operation of the Sutter
street tracks until the city had finished Its
sewer work and until after the crowds accom-
panying the arrival Of the feet had come and
gone. In another passage you denounce the
United Railroads for the operation of horse cars.
In another you state that the United Railroads
could not operate its cars even temporarily,
without committing a wrong. over the tracks of
the Sutter street line without the permission OF
the supervisors. because 1t had not acquired this
a.