The San Francisco call., 1910-03-31

street TO the ferry and has monopoly
Of the traffic at the ferry We do not
propose 10 give up that monopoly.
Black Outlines Position
j.. .,Our position toward the Geary street
road. Is somewhat different than it
might he toward another competitive
road. 1T IS not the Geary street road
alone that we care so much about. be-
cause we don't think that ever win
amount 10 much. but the fact is that by
adopting its policy Of operating this
road the city has announced its inten-
ffon of becoming a competitor in the
general transportation business and in
tends 10 branch out from this nucleus.
Under such conditions our borrowing
power is done away with and we can
mot go ahead with extensions. There
fore we win make no concessions IN
the Geary street matter.
E. Black as positively declared that the
nited Railroads would not accept any
Gearv street road to the lower Market
street tracks. but said that the COM
p.nv would be glad to sign an agree
ment 10 the effect that any existing
rights should not be affected by the
issuance of such permit or by the op-
Grafton Of cars under its provisions.
GEARY STREET THE BUGABoo
The one serious point raised against
TIE Bancroft bill during the commit
toe hearing was based on the assump-
tion Of the members of the committee
that its passage would -jeopardize the
rights Of the Geory street road" City
Attorney Long who had advised the
hoard that il had the power and au-
tboritv TO pass and enforce such an
ordinance. declared last night that this
assumption by the board members was
absolutely without foundation. He
said;
The passage of Supervisor Ban
crofts ordinance could not possibly
jeopardize the rights of the Geary
street road in any way. The ordinance
provides for nothing except that the
Cnfted Railroads must run its Sutter
street cars down the inner tracks in
Market street. 1t does not recognize
19e existence of the Sutter street rail-
way company in any manner. The city
.ias absolute right TO make such an
order. and tho bridging of any gap or
putting in Of any connection at the
foot of Sutter street could not by any
possibility serve TO weaken the city's
position.
DEFEAT A STEP BACKWARD
The argument advanced in support
of sue ha theory is wholly fallacious.
Moreover, the passage of the ordinance,
fn my opinion. would greatly
strengthen the city's position. If it
would weaken it you may be sure that
tho United Railroads would be only too
glad 70 have il enacted. I am also con-
WINGED in my own mind that if this
ordinance was adopted the United Rail
roads would obey the mandate The
defeat Of the ordinance is a serious
step backwards"
Supervisor Herget was responsible
for the explanation, given after the
committee meeting adjourned, that the
members of the committee had chosen
TO accept the advice of Attorney Cleve
Dam rather than that of the city's Of
fetal legal counselor Herget said:
The question as to whether the
passage of the Bancroft ordinance di-
recting the United Railroads to run its
Sutter cars cars down the inner Mar
.lret street tracks would jeopardize the
GIeary street road is one of opinion.
Supervisor Bancroft claims that City
Attorney Long says it would not do
50. but I am relyinv with the mayor
on the opinion Of Attorney Cleveland L.
Dam that it would jeopardize the Geary
opinions. / viii follow that of Mr..
Dam and will not vote. to give the
\ nited Railroads a permit or force it
10 90 down Market street until this
mater is settled in the courts"
ASKS PROMPT ACTION
- In connection with the reading of the
Bancroft ordinance In committee Su-
pervisor Bancroft's report on his OBJ
serVation Of the lower Market street
service was brought up. Supervisor
Herget who led the opposition to the
ordinance. objected that Bancrofts re-
port that no congestion existed was
based on observations that were not
made during the rush hour General
Manager Black went step beyond this
declaring that the figures presented by
Bancroft were false on their face
while Thornwell Mutually. assistant to
the president. added that IL the figures
were made in good faith they showed
j ignorance.
Although the matter of congestion
was mentioned by several speakers the
chief contention was that the passage
Of the Bancroft ordinance would COM
.plicate legal matters and jeopardize the
-Geary street road. Bancroft attempted
in vain to secure definite statement
as to how this injury to Geary street
rights might be brought about. In re-
spending TO an appeal by Supervisor
Hooks for prompt action Herget de-
clared:
This is the first time 1 ever knew a
member Of the former board OF SUPER
visOrs 10 want to do anything in
hurry. Sometimes / am inclined to
doubt the sincerity of certain old
board members. 1t looks to me as IL
an effort were being made to put the
board Of which L am a member IN a
peculiar position. 1t looks like the
whole matter was intended to promote
complications"
LOUGHERY EXPLAINS ACTION
In explaining his vote in opposition
TO the Bancroft bill. Supervisor Loush-
cry said he was against it, although
he believed that the United Railroa ds
would only have done the fair thing
by the board If it had accepted the
suggestion 10 put in switch to the
inner Market street tracks of its own
accord and so have demonstrated the
matter Of congestion.
Il think it was up to the United
Railroad to have done that" asserted
;Loughery. 1T was up to them TO give
a fair deal TO this committee, as we
have gone out of our way to give them
a square deal in the face OF the Wilt
fication of newspapers, which has been
ca rried almost to the extent of accus-
ing us Of being on the payroll of the
United Railroads"