The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1910-02-20
ADVISES BOARD ON
MARKET FRANCHISE.
City Attorney Outlines Dangers
of Granting Temporary Per-
NIT for Trolley Line
COunsels Supervisors to Throw
Every Safeguard Around
City's Rights

City Attorney Long yesterday an
swered the questions propounded to
him by the board of supervisors in
regard to the effect of a temporary
trolley permit that might be issued
to the United Railroads for the outer
tracks in lower Market street
Long pointed out that a certain
way to conserve the city's rights was
to exact a stipulation from the grantee
that the municipalities rights to use
the route to the ferry for an extension
of the Geary road should be formally
recognized.
If the board should not chose to do
this Long then advised that the permit
or franchise issued should, embody a
declaration that the city denied any
exclusive right to the Suffer street
organization or to the United Rail-
roads or to both.
That the board had the power to
grant a privilege to change rail-
ways motive power to electricity
Long held to follow neces sarily from
its general charter prerogat ives.
Whether the privilege was one open
TO competition or not, Long pointed
out lay within the scope of the
boards judgment to determine He
also directed attention to the danger
of inadvertently admitting a monopoly
control of the street to the two COM
panies combined.
MUST BE CAREFUL
This danger he stated in the fol-
lowing language:
In adopting the procedure here
tofore outline dit must be borne in
a 1pf nj tirr, Nv
Doard Of supervisors that the priVi-
lege Is not subject to competition
may be construed as a recognition
OF the right of the Suffer street
railway company to operate on the
outer tracks in Market street and
might preclude the city from after
ward asserting, in connection with
the municipal road, that such right
mas been forfeited by the Suffer
street company. In other words,
the determination by the board that
TINS permit is not subject to COM
petition may necessa rily be based
upon the theory that the Suffer
street railway company and the
sive right to the use of lower Mar
ket street for street railway pur-
poses.
TWO SAFE COURSES
Long then outlined the only two
pa tbs of procedure which in his opin-
ion conserved the city's rights:
The course for the board of su-
pervisors to follow is one to be
determined by it as matter of
best policy and judgment. There
fore, If the board wishes to make
absolutely certain the right of the
city to operate its own street rail-
way system in Market street from
Geary street to the ferries then it
can best do so by making as
condition for the granting of the
permit the stipulation that the
Suffer street railway company will
recognize the right of the city to
operate its cars over the same
route.
If. however, the board should
after a determination of the COM
petftive question above outlined
determine TO grant the privilege or
issue the franchise, as the case may
be, to the Suffer street railway
without the condition Immediately
above set forth, then such privilege
or franchise should be granted sub
ject to ~an express stipulation that
such grant is made and accepted
upon the condition that the city
shall lose none of its rights to
operate street railway system of
its own over the same portion of
the street covered by the grant
and that the city, through the is
suance of the grant, does not rec
ognize the right of the Suffer street
railway company or the United
Railroads, together or separately
to an exclusive use of Market street