The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-27
The Ashworth Case May Prove
Profitable Through It's
Lessons.
JAMES DENMAN's SURPRISE.
The Street Departments Irresponsi.
bility and the Ways of Con.
tractors Shown.

While the prosecution IN the ASnWOrtn
case failed utterly, and the defendant was
victorious; as result of the exposition OF
law by Judge Murphy, the case IS likely to
prove worth much more than its cost to
the public.
1t has served to haul forth from the
tangle of general laws, charter provisions
and ordinances bearing on street matters
the strange fact that the bulk OF the Clty's
street mprovements-the original I'M
provements which it is most important to
have we'll done-are being made without
the control of any responsible or official
authority. The case has again illustrated
the incompetent, careless and fraudulent
methods by which the City gets large
share of its street improvements, and 1t
may do something toward driving into the
mind of that dullard in public business,
the public, the point that it gets the worst
OF 1t right along, somehow.
The fact that the Superintendent OF
Streets, while he is supervising and &C
cepting 81 800 900 worth of street improve
ments made by private contract each year
is merely doing gracious and practically
voluntary act to which no official respon-
sibillty attaches, and for any misconduct
in which he cannot be punished, was new
to James Denman, as it is to most other
people. Mr.. Denman was a member OF
the Street Committee of the last Board OF
Supervisors and took a careful interest IN
street improvements. In discussing the
matter yesterday he said:
The whole thing is surprise to me. While
the most of the work of improving streets not
accepted by the City is done by private con-
tract. these contracts are quasl-pubilc ones,
ffaf i,,ta In hac a m
ner in which the work is done, and to the fact
that the work must be satisfactory TO the Su-
perintendent of Streets before it can be ac-
copied by the Board OF Supervisors. This is,
however, l believe, merely matter OF City
ordinance. | always supposed that the Super
intendent of Streets was responsible Tor oil
work done under his supervision.
This private contract system of making i'm
provements ought to be abolished, and when
was in the board and others tried to effect
it. Those private contracts generally
frauds. The getting of those contracts is
regular business. A solicitor representing
some contractor, or often himself acting as a
promoter, finds stretch OF street that might
or ought to be improved and he canyasses the
Droperty-OWners for signatures to petition to
the Board of Supervisors that the work be
done and to contract for doing the work at
stated price per foot. He tells the property
owners, who know little about street matters,
that it will be cheaper by private than by pub
lie contract, because they save advertising and
surveying expenses. He doesn't tell them,
however that the work will cost them from
$500 to $500 block more
The solicitor generally works for himself, and
when he gets the consent he hawks it about
among street contractors and gets from 800 to
$500 for it, When the board grants permit
the contractor can go ahead. When the work
is done the Superintendent of Streets recon-
mends its acceptance BY the City and If no
good reason appears the Street Committee ac-
cepts it, ana thereafter the City is responsible
for the condition OF that street. If acceptance
is refused the work must be made satisfactory.
If the contractor got his money before accept
ance was refused the people would have to pay
to have the work done over again. When l
was in the board we refused to grant permits
unless the contractor showed us contracts re-
curing the work to be performed TO the salts
faction OF The Superintendent of Streets before
he was paid. We did this to protect the prop
erty-OWners.
The other method is for the board to order a
street improved at the expense of the property
owners and TO advertise for bids for the work.
In that class of work the Superintendent of
Streets would undoubtedly be officially re-
sponsible Tor his supervision and acceptance.
The price OF bituminous paving under this
system used to be about il cents a square
foot, while the same work by private contract
generally cost % cents There is, of course.
room for careless and fraudulent work under
the public contract system, but l think there
would hardly be as much, and there is at least
some official responsibility. The private con-
tract system is a habit or custom more than
anything else, nursed by the contractors. Any
new street Improvement can be made under
the public contract method. Ii it is so that
tnere is no responsibility on any one under
the private contract system the only safety is
for the Board of Supervisors to refuse to ap-
prove private contracts and do all work the
other way. BY these private contract frauds
the City is in fact mulcted, because it takes on
its hands bad work that win prove costly in
repairs.
George T. Gaden, the Mayors expert,
who has been active, in conjunction with
George w. Elder, in bringing to light the
mass of petty frauds in street work that
have recently been uncovered, had this to
say yesterday:
AS far as the law is concerned it is mixed up
SO that no one can make head or tail out of
1t; but Assistant District Attorney Black came
into court loaded down with law in support of
his side, which was not listened to. Judge
Murphy's position was that it was matter be-
tween the property-owners and the contractor,
that the superintendent of Street was simply
q sort OF arbitrator between them and that he
was not responsible for his deputies. If that
is SO 1t is nice state of affairs. The work in
eight out of ten streets in this City is done
raudulently-bitumen, basalt blocks or sew
ers. The street work here is a big farce, and
contractors are no more governed by law and
specihcatlons than a pirate on the high seas.
L think that one result OF the case, however,