The San Francisco call., 1898-11-16
JUGGLED WITH
 THE LINCOLN
 SCHOOL LEASE Original Holders Were
 Deceived. STATEMENT OF JOHN GRANT AMPLE EVIDENCE OF A JOB TO SHUT THEM OUT. Waller Ordered Secretary Welsh Not to Receive the Rental From
 the Former Lessees of
 the Property.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GRANT
AMPLE EVIDENCE OF A JOB TC
 SHUT THEM OUT.

Certain members of the Board of Edu- cation are whistiing shrilly though some what discordautly nowadays, said mu- siGal endeavors being for the sole pur- pose of keeping their courage above the freezing point.
 Somehow, they seem to have a premo- hilton that they 'are up against it.'
 John Grant the well-known real estate dealer and capitalist, is the latest to shed light upon the unsaVory lease of the Lin coin school property. MT. Grant was the original lessee of the lot at the corner of Fifth and Market streets. Re says he firmly believes the charges made by John P. Reynolds are absolutely correct.
 Last night, MT. Grant related in detail his connection with the lease, and his statement substantiates in every partic- ular that made by Edward McGrath, an- other of the original lessees and published in yesterdays Call. Mir. Grant is a fully kept all the ~~~ers and documents relating to the lease, even to copy of the old Evening Examiner of June 15, 1874, which contains the advertisement for bids for the original lease.
 Although bids were advertised for in June, 1874 said Mir. Grant, it was not lease was formally signed. This was owing to some hitch over bids for four of the lots. In April, 1875. l began the erection of the building that still stands at the southeast corner of Fifth and Mar ket streets, which cost me $3S 900 to put up. l excavated for a basement under the entire building out to the outer line of the sidewalk, put in a brick bulkhead and foundations substantial that they are ready to-day to bear the weight of mod ern sky-scraper.
 Under the terms of the lease paid $4 a front foot for the first five years, s6 the second five, SS the third and SIP for the fourth term of five years. You will see that in the advertisement calling for bids it expressly states that all Improvements belonged to the lessees, and 1t provides that unless such improvements are re- moved within thirty days after the ex- piration of the lease they shall become the property of the city, unless an extension of time for such removal shall be granted 1S75 before they commenced to pay rent the intervening time being granted for the construction of buildings and putting the property in condition to produce revenue.
 From that time until 1882 the lessees paid no taxes, it being held that tho Drap- erty, being owned by the city, the im- provements on it as well as propei " itself were exempt from taxation. In the latter year, however, the city brought suit against the lessees to compel the payment of taxes as on the improvements. Judge Hunt of the Superior Court rendered judg- ment in favor of the city, whereupon the lessees appealed to the Supreme Court That tribunal sustained the lower court, and in the opinion handed down it dis tinctly stated that the improveme be- ing owned by the lessees, they were liable to taxation.
 Since that time the lessees have paid taxes regularly, and l have all my re- ceipts for taxes on the building l put up