The San Francisco call., 1896-03-13
Mr.. REYNOLDS LETTER.

N n. NE NOLDS LIE En-
He Declares That Mr.. Freuds Did
Not Answer the objection
Previously Raised.
John NJ. Reynolds further emphasizes his
views on the proposed new City charter,
claiming that its restrictions would make
the task of acquiring public gas and water
works more difficult, in the following letter:
To the Editor of The CaIl-DEAR SIR: In
public letter yesterday morning, Mr.. J. Rich
ard Freud writes that the interview with me
published in yesterdays CALL contained "a
NUN ber of miss tatements and fallacies." The
importance of the charter and the assertions
warrant q reply. Let me state. however,
with sincere respect and good will. Although
he says that | have made misstatements, he
does not quote one single line. | challenge
him to do SO and TO prove me in error. My
claim was that various limitations and restric-
tions had been injected into the new charter,
winch would enable those who now have fran
chises to hold them against the wishes OF the
people. pointed TO article ii, section 64 OF
chapter l article vi, chapter l, section 3; and
| article XIV, section 16, to prove that it re-
quires the affirmative vote OF all the Board OF
Public Works and nine Supervisors before any
question of public ownership can be su admitted
to the people. An of the Board of Public
WorSs must agree as to values and recommend
propositions before the Board of Supervisors
can act Moreover, the clause which requires
the Supervisors TO take into account the exist
ing plants, ''if they can be acquired on reason
olies to dictate to the Boards of Public Works
and Supervisors, or 10 appeal TO the courts TO
enforce claims that they would deem
| are free from. Mr.. Freud acknowledges
that it would require a larger vote of the Sup
eryisors than is now necessary. He therefore
admits that point. VIII he not also admit that
the Board of Public Works (all of them) must
approve and recommend the cost and value of
any works? Will he not admit that if one
member of the Board of Public Works had an
| exaggerated idea of the value OF the Spring
Valley works he could compel the Others to ac-
cept his views or obstruct all progress? Mr..
Freud and other advocates of the new charter
have persisIently omitted the limitations above
noted in their quotations and have thus mis-
led the public This seems TO me a great wrong
to the public because, confiding in the intelli-
gence and honor OF an advocate, they would
draw conclusions, which, If the whole facts
were stated might be different.
Mr.. Freud quotes article VI, chapter l, Sec
tion 8, which says the estimates of the Board of
Public Works shall be the basis upon which
may be submitted" to the electors, ETC.. and
claims that reasonable construction of these
words that the estimates shall be SUBJ
mitted." This is too absurd to be worthy of
comment.
For one to say las Mr.. Freud does) "that the
sincere advocates of municipal ownership are
now confronted with splendid opportunity
of having their cherished doctrine carried Ollt
in the successful adoption of the new charter" !"
when the new charter contains these very
grave and serious obstacles that do not now
exist, is about as reasonab bic to infer that
''may be- is the same "shall be-
The law OF 1889 which he refers to does not
contain the limitations of the new charter, ac-
cording to his own reference and interpreta-
ton of it. Neither does article XI, section 18
of the State Constitution, which he quotes In
fact, the claim that the new charter is in the
interest of the monopolists is unassailed by
any proof to the contrary. 1t certainly does
surround the question of public ownership
restrictions ippt
Mr.. Freud will have to acknowledg this sooner
or later.
1t also strikes blow at the liberality and
grandeur OF our school system by denying to
the graduates of eminent universities and in
stitutions outside of our State the right to
teach in our City, All teachers must be edu-
Gated in the public-school system of this State.
(artcle VII, chapter LII, section A. This is un-
patriotic and un-American and shows an aston
lshing narrowness on the part OF the Board of
Freeholders.
1t also empowers the Board of Supervisors to
sell lands now or hereafter owned by said City
not dedicated or reserved for public use. How
do our single-tax friend Barry and his asso-
ciates like that? 1t recognizes the contract
and franchise system which has been the
source OF corruption in our municipal govern
ments. In fact, it is not progressive measure,
but scheme to hold the people of this City in
bondage to the monopolies Of the present and
the future. Our friends may have committed
mistake in taking 1t up hastily but we hope
they will be candid and acknowledge the
points that are clearly against the adoption of
the new charter, among which are the limita-
tions 10 public Ownersip, which Mr.. Freud has
not shown do now exist.
A daily paper-not THE CALL-in an editorial
to-day AYERS that 1t is well that eased safe
guards are placed in the new charter to pre-
vent the people from owning the public ntili-
ties. That paper evidently is not in touch
with the masses. The people of Lincoln Po-
mona, Suisun, Santa Rosa and Ventura and
other places in the State during the past wear
have decided to own their water service al.
ways by two-thirds vote. Ventura's vote was
300 for to 40 against: Suisun's vote was lat
Tor to against. Such votes show how the
people feel upon the subject. Now. the afore-
said daily paper would have us believe that
the people should be held back by re-
strictions which will benefit the corporations
TO tax the people. The aforesaid daily paper
says it is well that the new charter REQUIRES
that nine Supervisors must be in favor OF any
proposition looking toward municipal owner
ship. Yes, 1t is well for the corporations, one
of which (he S. V. w. Coz extracted $I,7O7,-
234 Is last year, on an expenditure Operating
expenses and taxes of $47S, 1881 SO. 1t is very
nice, for them, TO De able to pocket 81 100000
annually, and the people will thank the afore-
said daily paper for advocating the new char
ter which will keep them from cutting off this
excessive tax. The people like to be taxed uy
private corporations in whose affairs they have
no voice. The people like taxation without
representation and will increase the aforesaid
papers subscription list, because it is trying
to keep them under the rule of the Spring Val
ley Water Works and other monopolies, by in
ducing them to sanction the greater obstacles
to public ownership that are imposed by the.
new charter. The editor of that other paper
not THE CALL, evidently does not know that
pu bile ownership has always reduced the cost
TO consumers of water and light wherever it
has been tried. He may not know how popular
the subject of public ownership is.
But to return to the subject of the limita-