The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-13
MR. DOHRMANN PROTESTS
He Takes Mr.. AShWOrth to Task
for Unfair Rejection of
Work Done.
WHAT SOME FIGURES SHOW.
The Merchants Association Aiming
at the Best of Work, Even
at Loss.

President T. W. Dohrmann of the Mer-
chants Association does not propose to
have Street Superintendent Ashworth arbi-
trarily and uniustly reject the street.
sweeping done by the association without
protest.
On Tuesday Mr.. Ashworth INDUCED in a
wholesale rejection of the work done on
the streets in that portion of the City
bounded by Powell, Market, McAllister,
Van Ness and Suffer streets, and yesterday
he objected to some of the work done on
the south side of Market street, below
Eighth, where the cobplestones are numer-
Gus, and also on Larkin street and on Pa
cifc avenue in the Western Addition. His
latter treatment of the Merchants Asso-
citation was not quite so bad as the former.
In that case he rejected an entire district
because of some faulty work in few
places, and insisted that he had perfect
right so to do.
The Merchants Association has placed
its position in this matter on record IN a
letter to Mr.. Ashworth, in which it says:
Recognizing it as your duty to reject any I'M
satisfactory work, and fully aware that our
employees with the best OF Instructions ana IN
ntions may occasionally fall short of the
proper standard, we do not object to the retec-
ton of any bad or even doubtful work, and we
do not ask any favor or exception Tor our asso-
cations work in this respect. But we earnest
ly protest against wholesale and arbitrary re,
lection OF an entire district when but small
portion is not fully satisfactory.
Mr.. Dohrmann said he did not have any
complaint on any proper and warranted
criticism which the Street Superintendent
might make; in fact, he believed that was
the proper thing to do.
CIV hot rx,a &c 70 hicrh cfonH To- ri
of street cleaning kept up in this City; that
is what we are in this business for, and so
long as Mr.. Ashworth is rejecting faulty
work on behalf of the public good, and
with view to the maintaining of high
standard of cleanliness in the future. he is
acting quite in harmony with our purpose.
But, is it fair to reject good work because
some poor work has been done?
Let me give you some figures which
can show just how the association fire.
quently comes out of a nights work on
some portion Of the City, and bear in mind
that our aim is quality rather than guam
tity.
ION Monday night it cost the association
$96 for the machines on the work Mr.. Ash
worth rejected and SO 40 for extra men to
clean up the dirt it left behind. We swept
1872 ia square yards, for which we receive
80 cents for 1000 square yards, viz: $57 SO,
leaving total loss to us of SAT 81.
Last night (Thursday) it cost the asso-
citation $105 1884 so for machines and
Sill Is for an extra crew to follow-and we
cleaned 223, 500 square yards for return of
SGT IA, our loss being $38 81.
$50 you see we are doing conscientious
work. But understand me, we are not
complaining OF any rejection by Mr.. Ash
worth when it is justifable. What we pro-
test against is any sweeping rejection OF
good and bad work alike
An inspection was made by two of the
directors of the association yesterday of the
work last rejected by Mr.. Ashworth, and
if they find in their report that his action
was unwarranted an appeal will be taken
to the Board of Supervisors. when the
kinds of street pavement with which the
Merchants Association has to DEAL" said
Dir. Dohrmann, particularly the cobble-
stone kind, is considered, Mr.. Ashworth
should not indulge hypercritical ten
dency. The animus is too apparent"