The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-11-22
PRIVATE CONTRACTS.
The Other Side of the Matter Heard Be
fore the Street Eommiftee

lngs ut the meeting of the Street Committee
held on last Thursday, the 10Th inst, was
published in the Daily Report of the same
| date:
Captain l. W. Lees appeared before the
committee and narrated some interesting
facts about the ingenious and crooked meth
| DDS OF the street contractor. He told
how efforts had been made to force him to
| sign a private contract for the paving of
Hayes street, from Scott to Devisadero. He
said that originally the work was started
| by public contract, but that it was stopped
| by protest He was one of the property
| owners who signed the protest. but he did
| SO at the request of man who represen ted
| that he was the agent of the President of
the Hebrew Orphan Asylum. He subse-
ply the agent of Thomson & Will
JAMS. street contractors. After the work
had been stopped the same indI-
vidual visited him and requested him
to sign private contract for the
low then threatened to make the work cost
him an exorbitant sum. He said he would
| do the work, and then put it through the
board and compel Lees to stand the cost of
all the incidental expenses. Lees also
learned that names had been forged to the
| contract. He denounce street contractors
| In bitter terms, and said that much of the
blame visited upon the Supervisors by the
Bulletin and other papers that knew moth
of the crookedneSs of street contractors.
lie condemned the whole private contract
system, and said that it should be pro-
hibited altogether unless put under proper
restrictions. He explained further that
Thomson & Williams had paved all the
block on Hayes, between Scott and Deyisa-
derO, except in front of his property. and
then wanted to charge him 2 cents per
lineal foot more than would have been
charged under the public contract" =
q tn haT 10,
tain'S request to postpone the proceedings
started by the contractors with view of
forcing him to do the work"
take this account as being absolutely
exact, and knowing all the facts in the mat
ter L respectfully request you to insert these
observations and refutations in your es-
Unable journal.
Under the law, custom and common sense
owners OF property representing majority
OF the frontage on a street. asseSsable for
the cost OF the work, for reasons of their
own. can protest against the action of the
Board of Supervisors and thereby postpone
the work for six months. Under the same
law. customs and common sense, the same
majority can decide that the work shall be
done. before the expiration of the six
months, by contracting privately or petition
ing the Board of Supervisors.
In either case the majority imposes its
will upon the minority.
In either case the minority is dissatisfied
Some property-Owners are always in favor
of street improvements Others are always
opposed to them. Let the contract be pub
| lIc or private there Is always some one who
objects. Mir. Lees Is one of tie latter.
The public contract is forced upon the
property without the choice of time,
contractor, price, and the latter NAV be
governed by combines-and, after cOnsum-
nation, additional advertising EXPENSES *
a he
interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum
is charged after thirty days, and in case OF
suit SIS is added to the Judgment for attor-
nsyS' fees.
The private contract is voluntary act
between the contracting parties, inviting
competition, allowing Of the discussion be-
tween man and man of prices, terms Of pay
ment etc.
In both cases, public or private contract,
the work Is performed under the super
vision of the Superintendent of Streets,
through sworn inspector. AS for the
contractor, II is just as business-like for
him, through his solicitor or agent to offer
his services TO prOperty-Owners for supply
ing and laying cobble-stones, baSalt stone
blocks and btuminOus rock pavements, as
| it IS for the merchant through his drummer
or agent. to offer his wares to those who re-
sell or consume them.
Judging from an editorial which appeared
IN the Daily Report of same date (19th
inst), Mr.. Lees' unwarranted attack
against private contracts was eagerly
seized upon by this Report and made cap
ltal Ofsln It's campaign against private con-
tracts. with vieN-most evident. indeed
OF Subjectlng prOperty-owners to the pay
| ment of the printing bill under public con-
tracts, which. in contracts of all kinds
grading, sewering and paving-averages
! $50 in each case. Actually, and to be ac-
months, there are more than 1000 improve
ments projected by property If
advertised for their advertising bill will be
$4,000.
In the matter of Mr.. Lees unwarranted
attack, here are the facts:
The work of paving HAYES street, from
Scott to Devlsadero, was recommended by
the Board of Supervisors in June or July
last. For reasons best known to them
selves-presumaby for economy. sake
the property-Owner representing major
ity OF the frontage, 1876 feet. on said
street. majority of seventy-five feet, re-
Quested that a private contract be brought
them for signing, also protest, the latter
to stop the action OF the Board of Super
visOrs.
Why should contractor refuse workp
Would merchant refuse 10 sell goods when
q purchaser comes to him?
At this point the necessity of the protest
must be explained.
Under the former boards the filing OF
private contract put stop to the adyertis-
| Ing of the work.
Under the present board, when advertis-
! ing Is going on, the ruling is that the work
| is under its jurisdiction, and must 90
| through the advertising routine, unless the
| property-owners interested in the work pro-
| test against it,
The contractors accepted the property-
owners request. and the Iatter, representing
the above frontage (4ST:6 feet, signed both
| contract and protest, as also did Mr. Lees
| the protest alone. But thing to be noted
carefully, Mr.. Lees signature to the pro-
| test was not necessary 10 stop the boards
| action; nor would his signature, along with
all the other then unsgung prorerty-own-
| ers, have stopped the said action of the
| board. Mr.. Lees and the latters' com
| bned frontages would haveonly footed 1857 g
| feet, while over 412 g feet are necessary.
From what precedes it is evident that a
majority wanted the work done by private
| contract, and the minority, with the excep-
| ton of MIR. Lees, in conformity with law,
! custom and common sense, joined the ma
| jority, and the work was done along the en-
| tire frontage of the street, excepting on the
| frontage of Mr.. Lees property.
Mr. Lees says that he was threatened with
| eXorbitant coSt-that the contractor wanted
| to charge him cents more per square foot
than would have been charged under pub
| lie contract.
1t is of record that bids sent in to the
| Board OF Supervisors in July last-date
| upon which Mr. Lees was first sPen-rapged
from % to 292 cents per square foot.
i ne PoHte duu DuslnesSllke character of
the interviews with Mr.. Lees, the threats
| and cents extra charge are shown and
refuted in the following copy Of a latter
| handed him by tile agent
Rather than remove the plant and in
order to satisfy the earnest and lust wishes
of all the owners that their street be com
| pleted and accepted, also at the request of
| one OF the pr0perty-0wners, a slight reduc
ton was rendered him from IS to 26h cents.
| as is shown in the letter:
To Captain l. w. Lees.
| DEAR SIR:
| In the matter of paving
| with bituminous rock Hayes street. between
| Scott and Devisadero streets, we hereby offer
| you to do the portion for which Won are az.
sessable thereon at the following prices:
Bituminous rock pavement 26% cents per
square foot
Granite curbfng, 81 per linenl foot.
| We will accept payment, half of amount
| SIXTY DAYS and tha ram ain,iar ,,i.et.- -