The San Francisco call., 1898-10-19
FATHER OTIS
 GREAT PROJECT

positively to take action. He asked why the Board of Supervisors had not passed an ord1- nance condemnins the place, and at the same time declared that even if 1t did he would not act under the ordinance, as the State law was Mir shadburne thanked him him for what he had done and withdrew. Chief Lees sent to me eFd if who informed me that ene Bacon place until after election. but that he would not promise to act even then. l stated that we would have to take action Independent of him; that 1t was his duty to to the in forcement of the law. We had requested him to do so. He mad demonstrated his ability to cope with the evil by the closing of St. Mary's, Quincy and Morton streets and Berry place, and therefore his refusal to act was not due to lack of power, but due to other req son, and what that reason may be we do not know.
 No matter how capable and well-intentioned officers of the police force of this city may be, if they have at their head a man who will not instruct them to enforce the laws they are pow erless to effect any material change in ex- isting evils: Why we should be compelled to do the work of the Chief of Police Is another thing hard to be explained His representative intimated that the Chief would declare that he was asked to take action in order to depre- cate the value of the adjoining property. That was but of the arguments used. MT aid l. We requested him to act in accordance with the law, which Is a sufficient argument in an additional argument. And it is an argu- ment. If immortality is permitted to be pro tected openly in proximity to the proposed park grounds 1t gives hope to the owners of the places that were formerly used for the same nurnose that they would be able to this property for the same purposes again. Why does the Chief not act? Can he not procure the evidence against these people2 The owners lessees and occupants known to others and the evidence against them will be produced in court and they will be prosecuted independ- entity of the Chief. We have reason to complain about his inaction and do complain! He claims the honor of having closed St. Marys and Quincy streets. We freely concede 1t to honor of closing Bacon place. Why has an ordinance not been passed? That IS another question. We do think an ordinance neces- sary, although 1t has proven moral rorce heretofore.
 The majority of the Supervisors have shown their interest In the suppression of vice by passing several ordinances. We have not asked them to pass ordinance closing Bacon place because we discovered that an ordinance was already before the health and police committee. The history of that ordinance is somewhat pc culiar. It discussed at a meeting of the above mentioned committee on October 2. The daily papers declared that the committee had agreed to report favorably upon 1t. But it has come before the Board of Supervisors. Bacon place Is running wide open. Dupont street Is returning rapidly to it's former condi- effeoted-if we accomplish no more-unless the Chief actively assists us? The prosecution of owners, lessors and inmates these streets will be begun at once, and what will then be revealed remains to be seen. Parties interested in the maintenance of vice on Bacon place have held meetings on Saturday evenings. These meetings will prove interesting matter when discussed later. We afford to take our time. Endurance will prove an important ele- ment In securing success. and we are giving our attention to the best methods of developing this factor.