The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-10
INSPECTION AVOIDED.

All the efforts made to induce or compel
the Superintendent of Streets to furnish
the Mayor daily with a report of street.
work in progress, together with the names
of the inspectors appointed to supervise
the work, having failed, it may be interest
ing to consider the reasons which the
Superintendent gives for not desiring to
make such reports and for blocking all at
tempts to secure them.
Said Superintendent Ashworth to the
CALL: "There is no law to compel us to
furnish this information, and I will not do
it. They have tried every way they know
how to force me to give it, and have
failed, and now they come and ask for it,
and refuse them. The fact is, the Mayor
is taking upon himself work that is no
part of his duties.'
The they to whom Mr.. Ashworth re-
fers are the Mayor, the chairman of the
Street Committee of the Board of Super
visors, the Merchants Association and the
Civic Federation. These officers and civic
associations have been making close in
qulrles into the manner in which pavement
| and sewer improvements were made, and
have discovered that a ruinous and dis
graceful condition of affairs has existed.
So far as we are informed, they have ex-
| pressed no suspicion that Mr.. Ashworth
was in collision with the contractors or
that he was incompetent to perform the
duties of his Office. The natural inference
from their desire to secure Mr.. Ashworth' S
cooperation in the task of seeing that the
/ work is properly done and that the citizens
! and City are protected against rascality
n -Ohh 10 hot q ND
faithful officer he would be assumed to be
most willing to accept any aid from intel
| ligent and responsible men is his work OF
protecting the City; that he above all
| others would be most anxious to see that
the inspectors whom he appointed were not
serving the contractors instead of the City,
and that as a faithful officer he is DESTROYS
of making a record of honesty and ability.
If the extra work required of him in the
making of these reports would be unrea-
sonabIy burdensome and expensive it
would be only right for the City to provide
! clerical assistance which would relieve
him; and if any of those seeking to secure
| the oversight of the work done by his de-
partment nave been offensive in their
bearing toward him he will have the SYM
pathy of many in his resistance. All these
obstacles can be removed if they exist, for
it has now become the duty of all con-
cerned in this movement to make Mr.. Ash
worth's attitude on the score of his sense of
duty as plain as possible But he has
placed himself in an unpleasant light by
his two declarations that the law does not
require him to furnish the information
and that it is no part of the Mayors duty
to supervise his work. Had there not been
so many scandals growing out of street
work, and had not actual discoveries of
| grossly inefficient work been discovered,
Mr.. Ashworth's reasons for Withholding
the information desired might command
sympathy for their dignity, even though
respect for their wisdom be withheld.
Mr.. Ashworth does not seem to appre-
ciate the eaTnestness of this spirit of re-
form which has taken hold OF the people,
and by opposing an exercise OF it which
receives the sympathy of all good citizens
he is issuing challenge that will be ac-
copied with a readiness which will dismay
him. His efforts to withhold knowledge
of the work which his department is doing
will not prevent a discovery OF it without
his consent if we rightly Judge the earnest
ness and determination of the men whose
disinterested efforts for the public good he
is trying to balk. And it is not likely IN
der these circumstances that if occasion
should arise for charity or lenity it will be
extended to him with that cheerfulness
which he might possibly have expected
had he shown himself more in sympathy
with the present movement for honest
government than with the methods which
in the past have brought disgrace upon the
City.