The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-08

possessing.t the most influence and secure his
signature first If he does not care to sign
some inducement is given him. Often this in
ducement is in the shape of private agree
ment to remit a great portion OF the costs on
his lot. In other words if he signs first he will
be exempt from certain payments. The other
owners see his name and feel that If he can
stand it they can also. In fact they seem to
feel that it is worth while paying for the i'm
provement IN front of their little lots If the
wealthy man can be made to pay for improving
his portion.
They take wicked sort of satisfaction in it
without thinking that perhaps he has secured
some great eoncessions-that the laugh is
really on mis- side. This will probably account
for the fact that the representatives of large
estates uniformly favor the doing of street
work by private contract.
The principal argument used to induce
people to sign private contracts is that OF
economy They are told THAI under the law
they will have to pay for advertising, en-
g1neers' fee and inspectors services. Under
the private contract they save this. But the
bills when turned in show that the inspector
and engineer must be paid and the only
saving is in the advertising. the only item that
would insure open competition. 1t is poor
economy
Under the public contract the work is done
to the specifications prepared by the Super
visors and 10 the satisfaction of the Street
Superintendent. When completed the street
is accepted by the City and perpetually main
tanned. The law says the payment shall be at
a uniform rate per front foot In private work
the work is never done at a uniform rate. 1t
is done to the satisfaction of the Street Super
intendent and is supposed to be done under
the specifications governing public work. L
use the word supposed advisedly.
In the recent trial of the Street Superintend-
ent the Prosecuting Attorney reasoned that
the same specifications governed the public
and private contract work When called upon
by the Judge to give his reasons he alleged
that the contract read that the work was to be
done to the satisfaction OF the Superintendent
OF Streets, and also read from the general or
ders of the Supervisors the requirements for
all work done on accepted streets. The court
ruled against him because the street was not
accepted at the time the work was done
The people had entered into q private con-
tract to put main sewer and after the work
was done the Superintendent did not accept it
until all the owners had signed paper that
they were satisfied with the job.
In his acceptance he stated that the work
was done according to specifications and to his
sa abstraction. Yet on the trial his defense was
I'd at there were no specifications TO follow ex-
cepI the peoples inclinations, and that there
fore the public specifications did not govern
on private work. The Judge did not under
stand and the lawyers did not make him I'M
derstend that the sewering of the street was
an act precedent to its acceptance by the city.
The property-owners would probably resent
it ii called upon to do the work again before
the street is accepted. Yet under the law it
com piled with. The people relied upon the
Street superintendent, and they paid an in
spector, but We're then compelled to accept
their own job AS q matter OF fact, most OF the
Door work is done under private contracts. In
public contracts the money is due when the
work is completed, but time payments, the
$500 "a esSsEsa->>S on private contracts. can De