The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-08
Minnie Williams Father the
Alleged Victim of Promi-
nent Attorney.
HIS PECULIAR TALE OF WOE.
Claimed He Was Betrayed on One
Side and Treated Unfairly
on the Other.

Board of Supervisors for the sale OF fran
chise for garbage crematory, and to have
then betrayed his clients.
His accuser is A. E. Williams, the father
of Minnie Williams. one of the alleged VIC
tins of Durrant.
In yesterdays CALL there was published
q statement made by Mr.. Williams alleg-
ing that the Board of Supervisors had
acted unfairly toward him in not granting
him a franchise for a garbage crematory,
notwithstanding that his bid, as he claims,
was the highest. 1t was in an interview
based on this item that a series of most
sensational statements were made by Mr..
Williams. Mr.. Williams had grievance.
He was indignant, as he expressed it,
that after he had agreed to pay good
round compensation for securing the votes
TO pass this franchise, the Supervisors
should have failed to deliver the goods.
His ire was not so much directed against
the man who, he distinctly charged, had
betrayed him and his co-partners, as IL
was against the Supervisors.
He told the tale without a glimmer en-
tering his apparently morally obtuse
mind that he had been engaged in great
moral and legal sin. and spoke OF bribery
as a merchant speaks of the merchandise
in which he deals. His sole thought was
the protection of his interests and the re-
sort to bribery was treated as an ordinary
business transaction. His remarkable tale
follows:
1 have had the project of establis hing a
garbage crematory in this City in mind for
about three years. l had made efforts before
other Boards OF Supervisors to secure fran
chise for the purpose, but something or other
always prevented me from securing it. l en-
deavored TO secure one from the present board
about year ago and was then given TO under
stand that the board would not advertise for
one without some special influence being
brought 10 bear upon them. About ten
months ago l first consulted with -
-- (naming prominent attorney in rel
erence TO the matter, and on the understand
ing that he was to have one-tenth interest in
the franchise he agreed TO see that the Solid
Eight granted me and the parties represent
such q FRANCHISE.
On the strength of the understanding thus
had with Mr.. i made application last April
to the Board of Supervisors, and in accordance
with the act of March 8, 1898, they advertised
for bids for ''a franchise 10 receive, ere mate
animal and vegetable matter, ETC., and to con-
vert portion OF the same into fertiltZing mat
ter and other substances free OF all cost
charge to the city"
While was considering what to bid so as to
come above the minimum of $1,000 fixed for
the franchise by the Supervisors, and yet not
pay 100 much for ii, had other conversations
with Mr.. -, IN the course OF which we dis
cussed the franchise was extremely anxious
TO secure. He showed great interest in the
matter and succeeded in getting into my con-
fidenee TO such an extent that I told him
thought 1 would put i'll bid of $1,000.
After we parted, however, began TO review
our talk and then became suspicious of him, as
he had asked some very pointed questions as
TO what proposed to bid, before finally told
him. Not desiring to take any chances, after
consulting with the parties interested with me,
! put in a bid OF $4,000 cash, with the promise
of paying an additional sum of $2s, 900 in in
stallments, extending over the thirty-fve years
during which the franchise was to run: also
promised to erect crematories or reduction
works. or both, with a capacity of not less than
$50 tons daily, which capacity to be in
creased as necessity required. The estimated
cost OF the original plant was $250,000 and
agreed to charge % cents for each cubic yard
OF bone refuse, garbage, etc, delivered to US.
At the time the bids were opened, May 81,
1895, there was only one other, signed by
Henry ]. Lang, and when this was read l felt
sure my suspicious of Mr.. - had been well
founded, for Lang bid more for the franchise
and agreed to charge less for disposing of the
garbage, ETC., than l had told Mr.. - in
$110o, and agreed to charge only 20 cents per
cubic yard for disposing of the garbage.
My figures were apparently unexpected, for
instead of acting the bids the matter was
laid over from time to time.
This action on the part of the board led me
to believe, and 1 am now quite, sure Twas
night, that Mr.. - had gone back on US and
had decided to secure the franchise for himself
and some of his friends
Before or those interested with me came to
a full realization OF the treachery of Mr.. -
we held a meeting ct which an agreement was
signed apportioning the franchise among US.
In this agreement the name OF James E. Feehan
was inserted OF dummy to represent Mr.. IS
interests.
Here Mr.. Williams produced a type
written document, which he stated was a
copy of the agreement. 1t read as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL, June 13, 1895.
This agreement between Louis Thors,
Charles Alpers, 6. P. Rixford, ]. NJ. Chretien,
F. A. Hyde, Theodore keichert, D. A. Mac
donald, Joseph Scheerer, A. E. Williams and
T. j. Wrampelmeir
witnesseth-That whereas said Williams
has heretofore applied to the Board of Super
visors of the City and County of San Francisco
for q franchise to remove and cremate gar
bage, etc., for which said Williams has a bid
now pending before the Board OF Supervisors
in accordance with an advertisement and call
therefor per resolution 12,1l5 (third series),
and
Whereas, the parties to this agreement are all
interested in procuring said franchise.
Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed as follows:
The interest of said Williams in said franchise
is and shall be one-eleventh Old of nine
tenths 800 of the franchise.
If the said franchise shall be awarded to said
Williams by the Board OF Supervisors he will
hold the remainder thereof in trust for and
will, upon demand, convey the same to- the
folIowing-named persons in the proportions
stated:
To James Z. Feehan one-tenth Q-1O) of the
whole franchise.
To Louis Thors, Charles Alpers, G. P. Rix-
ford, J. NJ. Chretien, F. A. Hyde, Theodore
Reichert, d. A. Macdonald ana Joseph Scheerer
each one-eleventh Gid of nine-tenths (9-lO)
of the whole franchise.
To T. j. Wrampelmeir two-elevenths (2-1I
of nine-tentns (9-10) of the whole franchise
Any and all agreements inconsistent here
with are hereby Cancelled.
John NJ. Chretien, A. E. Williams, G. P Rix-
ford D. A.. Macdonald, F. A. Hyde, Louis
Thors, Theo. Reichert, Charles Algers, T. ].
Wrampelmeir.
Mr.. Williams continued:
This was done with the distinct understand
ing that for the one-tenth of the franchise
Mr. was TO induce the Solid Eight to pass
the order granting US the franchise. The mat
ter however, dragged on, and finally on the
3Oth of last September the Health and Police
Committee of the board, which had The matter
in charge, reported to the board as follows:
TAT this point Mr.. Williams produced two
sheets of manuscript on legal paper. which
he explained was the report of the Health
and Police Committee and which he pro-
ceeded to read.
In the matter OF bids received May 81, 1895,
for franchise for the removal of garbage your
committee reports that in the proceedings had
the proposals were not called for in conformity
with the statute regulating the sale of fran
chises, in that in addition to the price to be