The San Francisco call., 1897-09-08

show the lack of good faith on the part oil
the eight mem bers who voted for the
Haskins ordinance after only lew hours'
consideration, and Mr. Schell com Dlalned
that ter ''monkeying around for about
four months" on the main question they
jumped at the conclusion offered by the
Haskins ordinance wit ou any consldera-
ton whatever, but Judge Wallace deemed
it immaterial.
Mr. Russell said he had advised the
Supervisors that they could not be pun
ished for taking all the time necessary for
fixing the water rates. He founded his
opinion on q decision of the Supreme
Court.
Supervisor John Lackmann was called
to the witness-stand and described his
frequent efforts to secure action by the
board fixing water rates during the II onth
of February, but all without avail, because
he was in the minority. In this he had
been particularly joined by Supervisor
Rottanzi.
Supervisors Dodge and Clinton also bore
an honorable part in the matter, as they
voted against the Haskins order, thus
demonstrating that they were not con-
nected with the doing OF the solid eight "
Supervisor ROttanzi was also called and
made detailed statement of his frequent
n otions for action on the water question.
the month of February, and that he spent
many days and some nights studying The
question, frequently remaining up until
2 Ur or y clock in the morning for the
purpose OF com pieting his researches.
Supervisor Ha, kins was the only mem
Der of the solid ight' who was asked to
give his testimony. He admitted that he
did not show his proposed ordinance TO
any of the mem bers of tie minority Of
nd n Z "a W
making up a schedule of their own. He
and Supervisors Britt and Sheehan APP
peared to he The most active spirits IN
compiling the schedule which he offered.
When asked what part of the ordinan ce
be had written, Mr.. Haskius was not able
to designate his contributions from mem
ory. He INSISTED thai there was nothing
exactly secret about the meetings at
which his ord nan had been prepared,
though be admitted that newspaper re-
porter attempted to visit them on one Oc-
casion, but that be withdrew when he was
informed that what they were dong was
not for publication. The rates fixed by
his ordinance, Mr. Haskins said, gave a
horizontal reduction of about 20 per cent.
He could not say now the reductions were
accomplished exactly, as he could not tell
from what sources the revenue OF the
company was derived.
Mr.. Schell dec areG that the majority of
the board had not acted n good faith, and
said the history OF all their proceedings
aimed his position. He did not think
it was material whether they acted in
good faith or not, but as that copsidera-
tion had peen introduced as matter of
ueense he replied thus briefly 10 II.
Mr.. Costello, speaking for Supervisor
Rottanzi, said 1t is contrary TO the genius
OF American institutions for a court TO
punish the innocent Tor he wrongdoings
OF others; that Dr.. Rottanzi hau used his
best efforts TO have the water rates fixed
in February. and therefore was enIiy!ed to
the favorable consideration Of tue court.
Several decisions of the Supreme courts
were read IN sustaining this position.
Attorney MCGOWAN offered a similar
argument in favor of Mr.. Lackmann. He
said that even the plaintiff In this case, If
he had been a mem Der OF the Board of
Supervisors, could not have done more
than had been done by Supervisors Lack
mann and RottanZi IN urging the fixing OF
water rates within the time required by
law.
Here his client was in a dangerous and
unpleasant position through no iault of
his own and threate ned with punish
ment that he could not escape. unless the
court took the view of the glaw which
seemed to him consistent with true legal
princi 9le and justice. To use homely
expression, his client was between the
devil and the deep sea, and, in the OBJ
servance of judicial courtesy, he would
for The moment assume that the Supreme
Court is the deep sea.
MIR. Fitch seemed to think that this
might be construed as sly poke at him
self and showed his appreciation of the
humor.
Further argument of the case will be
heard to-day, Mr.. McEnerney being
prepared to speak for the defendants and
Mr.. Baggett is scheduled to close the argu-
ment for the prosecut on.