The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-08-15
PRIVATE CONTRACTS.
A Move to Rid the City of a
Deadly Octopus.
Hereafter q Three-Fourths Frontage VIII Be
Necessary for Such Work-The Mayor
Unearths a Rotten System.

uprooting of the outrageOusly rotten private
contract system on streets and sewers that
has flouriShed like municipal leprosy for
upward of ten years.
The adoption of the new Constitution in
1879 completely disorganized the system of
street work then in vogue, ard in the effort
to remedy matters the Board of Supervisors
o. 1850 passed a long ordinance of forty sec
tions in July of that year that aimed to cover
every possible emergency in street improve
ments.
Section 81 of that ordinance origin ated the
miSchevous system that has been so bane-
fol ever since. 1t provided that no person
should perform work Of any kind on streets
without first obtaining the consent of the
Superintendent of Streets.
Part second of the section required the
Street Superintendent to exact bonds for
the faithful performance of the work ac-
coriing to specifications set forth in another
portion Of the ordinance.
FORFEITURE THE PENALTY.
The penalty of inferior work, according
TO the law. was the forfeiture OF the bond
and the refusal of the city TO accept the
street. provided the nature of the work came
under the head OF accepted streets.
Competition In all such work was left en-
tirely OUT OF consideration. at least so lar as
the city was concerned, and II remained to
tie cunning of the contractors to secure the
work by any means in their power, honestly
or otherwise.
In very short time the city syarmed
with a sort of banditti of contractors.
They survived and thrived or not, according
TO their corrupt political Affiliations with
the Street Department, and the property
owners large and small, were pestered hall
out oil lher WIS with contractors Solcl-
SApElUT ElynafuTng certain work
The man with the most influence, OF course,
would get the WorE, ana the property
owners, As rule, found that the cheapest
way IN the end was TO pay whatever the
contractor had a NINA TO charge
OUTRAGEOUS ABUSES.
The abuses under this system became so
outrageous that there was a general clamor
Tor new street law, completely reorcanfz-
Ing the system of street work. and one of
its results was the enactment by the Legis-
iature in March, 1883, Of what has become
so Familiarity known AS the NrOOman 4 ct
This Nv required all street work of what
ever character to be set in motion by the
Supervisors bv means Of declaration of in
tentior." II also provid, d for competitf0n
by inviting bids aud giving the work TO the
lowest bidder.
Section II contained a clause, however,
enabling majority of the frontage TO come
in and take the work out Of the hands of
the lowest bidder and give it to their chosen
contractor, provided the cost did not ex-
coed tie lowest bid. This proceeding had
10 take place within certain specified time,
or the work would be given to the original
lowest bidder,
QUESTION OF CONsTITUTIONAIITy.
Some question was raised obont the nm
stitntionalty of this law So Will il vas sV in
disnnte street work in this CIV proce sS
Uuder the old regime In 1855 il Wa CON
siderabiy amended, bpt the eIanse inst re re-
ferred To remained unclaimed and a test of
ifs ronstitutionaIitv raxnifed in IT. fsror
From tba time of tbot decision hv the 81
nrene CDurt. ,JuIv 1887 the citv has haan
WORKING under that law
Il would not be going outside of the facts
TO assert that if The law had been strictly
observed and enforced the private contract
system Nould have become suddenly extinct.
But il was not, and taking advantage of
such laNty the corrupt contractors used the
new law as an additional weapon to fay and
coeTce the unprotected property-owner. 1t
Was maintained that the new law was not
mandatory, aud did not prohibit the old
system. but WAS simply directory when the
work was inaugurated under its own pro-
visions.
A GRAND OPPORTUNITY.
Here was a grand opportunity for the
swmdling private contractors. The new
law provided that when in tile Judgment of
the SUPERINTENDENT Of Streets certain work
should be done he had only to recommend if
to the board, and the declaration of inten
tion" wonld shortly follow If there vas
no Obstruction placed in the waV of The
work il wouId move alouS az the Ia n,
directed. and the cost of pnhliSbinp notices
surveying, etc. would be assessed To the
property fronting on The work in lust pro.
portion
The expense of inaugurating a piece of
street work-and here is one Of the im-
portant points to be noted, for it has been
the chief weapon used by the contractors
TO coeTce refractory owners-is no greater
for an entire block than ii would be for a
single 25-foot lot, because the form is pre-
clSely the same IN either case.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE.
The contractors yars ouick m COZ tbai,
advantage. Having fhe necessary "nnIi'i
in the street department there wand be no
doubt about their ability to get n hermit fo,
a private contract. Accordinglv thev wonjd
Dnt their Solicitors ON tho traci ,ybaronoI
it might be. 10 get the SIGNATURES of nronertv.
owners for a certain piece of work. The
devices thew resorted IN would Shame q
brakeman for GINNING and ingennitv
Sometimes the solicitors would succeed in
getting all but one or two of the necessary
Signatures. who possibly ohiected tn ths
man, the means. or the time. "a the case
might be. The c6ntractor mr. solicitor would
then say to these directors, ''Ob, very well,
II you don't desire to come in on this, you
need not We just thought we would give
you an equal chance with the rest, that's
all. We have the necessary signatures Ia
put the work through the Board of Super
ylsors, and in such case all the expense OF
That proceeding viii fall upon you alone.
You know the advertising costs like the
mischief IN that Stock Report, and then the
surveyors fees are very high, too"
THE DESIRED RESULT.
In nine cases out of fen if has tbe efrao,
of securing the obieetor's consent and ibs
work goes thronSh AT ths bigbeSt nrioo 'i ~
course The contracfor can NJ, pi't r. y.
agree 70.
Another nlan is resor,ad ., ,,ho, .t,, H.
natures of the nronertv1owner" az .- Iot S =
easily obtainabIa The Soi,oitor 60 ~ AZ
AssessoT;S hincI booE onS ootn s soes 70 tLs
of owners along anv dssi-a5 nioca 81 ,'.orir
He prepares an agresment and sfgn "a oil ~ IN M
names in pencil. Before appToaching soma
particular owner he Grass III S ,hae
shows him the agrermsnt # any nhiac .tior,
is raised the above forcihIe arenn ant is ay
that the owners signatnr rue IL ead ies4 w.
blank space. Then the NAT or,nar =; ~ VI. 'ne