Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-18
CITY IS PUZZLED
OVER FRANCHISE
STREET RAILWAY IN SOUTH
PARK AVENUE SOUGHT
People by Referendum Vote at Last
General Election Declared Against
Ordinance for Car Service
in Thoroughfare

More than 1000 people have petitioned
may not be able to do if it wants to
and would not be likely to do if it
could. That is to grant an electric
railway franchise in South Park ave-
nue..
The council could not do this, as the
people by their votes at the last gem
eral election in December declared
overwhelmingly they did not want a
franchise granted in that street. This
declaration was made through a refer
endum vote to which an ordinance
granting a franchise in this street was
submitted.
The petition presented late yesterday
asks the council to advertise for sale
a franchise in San Pedro street, fiom
Thirtieth to Jefferson streets and then
in South Park avenue to the city limits
This petition is headed by the South
Park Improvement association, and
then follow the signatures of more
than 1000 men and women, property
owners and residents in the district
which would be affected by such a
franchise.
The San Pedro street cars are oper-
ated on the line for which a franchise
is sought, but it is done under lease
which the Los Angeles railway holds
from the city and for which a nominal
monthly rent is paid. The city council
can cancel this lease any time it wishes,
and can tear up the tracks in San Pc
dro street and South Park avenue
The residents in this neighborhood de-
pend largely on this street car line and
have tried before to have the matter
definitely settled by the council
granting a franchise for the line.
The South Park avenue line always
has been a bone of conter ton between
the city and the Los Angeles railway.
Several years ago the railway secured
franchise from the council to build
this line. The franchise extended from
the Plaza south to Slauson avenue, in
Main and San Pedro streets and South
Park avenue. But the franchise con-
tanned a. clause setting time limit in
which the railway line must be COM
pleted. A portion of the line was built,
but only as far south as Thirtieth
street, before the time limit expired.
After the time had Expired the rail-
way company constructed the rest of
the line to Slauson avenue.
Franchise is Lost
Then the city's legal department was
called on to test the right of the
railway to the portion of the line south
of Thirtieth street. The matter was
taken to the supreme court and this
tribunal decided the railway had no
franchise. This decision was handed
down about four years ago, and when
the city attorneys department was no
titled, H. ]. Goudge, who was then as
sistant city attorney, took force of
Workmen and tore up portion OF the
tracks so the line was imperative.
When the railway learned the city was
determined to force its rights it Sc
cured a lease of the tracks from the
city council and has been operating
on this lease ever since.
About two years ago the council was
petitioned to grant a franchise for the
portion of the line south Of Thirtieth
street and passed an ordinance grant
ing the franchise. But before it could
become operative a referendum petition
was filed which made the ordinance
ineffective. When the ordinance was
referred to the people at the last gem
eral election it was overwhelmingly
defeated. One of the arguments against
it was that this street would be useful
for municipal railway from Los An
geles to the harbor.
The petition for the council to grant
a franchise that the people have said
shall not be granted has raised dell
cate legal question the city attorney
must decide. Can the council act con-
trary to the WlSheS or the people eX-
pressed by a referendum vote?
The referendum provision of the
charter says nothing about future ac-
tions by the council on a matter re-
ferred to the people. But while the
city's legal department has not given
an official opinion on the matter, sew
eral members of the department hold
that the provision expressed in the
initiative. clause of the charter must
hold with the referendum if the refer
endum is to have any effect at all;
that is, no such ordinance can be
passed without resubmission. to the
people. The initiative forbids any
amendment to an ordinance without a
majority vote of the people on the
amendment.