The San Francisco call., 1908-09-20
United Railroads Tactics in
Lower Market Street Vio-
late Its Charter
Mayor Taylor Likely to Move
for Forfeiture for Misuse
of Privilege
City's Chief Executive Consider
ing Possibility of Beginning
Civil Action
Substitution of HOrsecars Is
Declared Contrary to the
State Laws

"
Sutter street franchise may
be the abortive sequel to the
United Railroads attempt
to grab a monopoly of lower
Market street. This is the
opinion of Mayor Edward r.
Taylor, who has been scan
ming the statutes for legal
remedy ever since the dead
lock of the board of supervisors
and the street railroad corpora
ton, which was followed by the
insolcnt substitution of horseears
for trolfeys. Mayor Taylor is
dean OF Hastings law college and
has been a high ranking member
of the California bar for 40 years.
His view of the law in the case
bears much weight.
The mayor said yesterday:
Il am considering if 1t will be possi-
BILE to have action brought against the
United Railroads or the Sutter street
railroad company for forfeiture of its
franchise on the grounds of misuse or
its privilege. This action could be in
stttuted under sections sos and sos OF
the CODE Of civil procedure. which pro-
vide that action may be brought against
any party usurpinS any Office or fran
rchise, or who unlawf1lIy holds or ex-
ercises any public office or franchise
within the state Such action would
be in the nature of quo warranto pro-
ceedings brought by the attorney gen.
eral.
MISUSE OF ITS CHARTER
1T seems to me that the action OF the
Suffer street railway In selling a part
of its franchise to the United Railroads.
and maintaining its service only over
the part il retained. to wit: that section
of Market. street from the ferry to the
intersection OF Sutter is clearly a mis-
use OF its charter In the famous Dart
mouth college case it was held that
charter was contract and equally
binding upon both parties. Now. the
charter issued TO the Sutter street rail-
way company naturally provided for
continuous passage OF It's cars from
one end OF the line to the other. When
the company disposes OF part OF It's
franchise and subjects the passengers
who travel on its cars 20 the incon-
venience Of transferring to other ears
IN order to completes their Journey il
certainly is not carrying out its con-
tract.
INJUSTICE TO PASSENGERS
"Of course. we all understand that
the United Railroads purchased only
part OF the franchise. so that it could
bring about the very condition about
which many persons are now raising
so much protest. IL the United Rail-
lroads had purchased the Sutter street
system entire il would have been able
TO. electrize the line to- the ferry un-
der its blanket franchise permitting Il
to wire all of it's system.
But equity has nothing TO do with
It, There is no doubt that IL Is mis-
use of the roads charter when they
compel passengers using their. lines go
stand on street corners and wait for
other cars 10 take them to. the end OF
the line. There is a very material dff-
ference between a continuous passage
and an interrupted one, and this COM
pany. by its own action. has broken up
the continuity OF passage over its lines.
DCiACNo tACAc 10 4C6dA lcllcuJ LUZ
this"
The provisions OF the code of civil
procedure cited by the mayor, In full.
are as follows:
Section S02-Action may be brought
against any party usurping., etc. any
Office or franchise. An action may be
brought by the attorney general. in
the name OF the people OF this state
complaint OF a private party. against
any person who usurps. intrudes into
or unlawfully holds or exercises any
public Office. civil or military. or any
franchise within this state And the
attorney general must bring the action
whenever he has reason to believe that
any such Office or franchise has been
usurped, intruded Into. or unlawfully
held or exercised by any person. or
when he Is directed to do so BY the
governor
OESTzxG IS THE PENALTY
The provision providing the penalty
is as follows:
Section S09-When defendant
against whom such action has been
brought is adJudged guilty OF usurping
or intruding into. or unlawfuIly hold
ing any ONCE. franchise or privilege.
Judgment must be rendered that such
defendant be excluded from the Office
franchise or privilege and that he pay
the costs OF the action The court may
defendant ine not exceeding $4,000.
which fne when collected must be paid
into the treasury OF the state
Attorney General Webb could not be
|fnterviewed on the subject yesterday.
~ p - -hoarnr f~<.~<<