The San Francisco call., 1898-02-08

at the same time adVlSed the HarDOT
 Commissioners of the fact that MT.
 Slade had consulted me. This was done in an open meeting at which were present the secretary, MT. Keegan, | Colonel Chadbourne, MT. Colnon and | MT. Harney All these gentlemen re-
 member the circumstances perfectly. l | further informed them that 1 would not advise them thereafter as to any mat
 ter in which Mir. Slade might assert
 any claim or right as against the
 board. I never had advised them in
 any matters affecting the Slade Lum-
 Der Company contract other than what I had already advised them prior to the
 time when MT. Slade came to me. MT. | Slade was not a party to those suits. | His interests and those of the board were on the same side at that time.
 That is, the board had audited his bills
 and were seeking to pay him the
 money.
 Furthermore, I never advised the
 Slade to settle with the Pacific Pine Lumber Company, and, on the other hand, I advised the Harbor Comnis-
 sioners against making any settlement
 with the Pacific Pine Lumber Con- | pany. In fact, I advised against in
 any way being party to any com-
 promise, directly or indirectly, prefer | ring that the entire matter should be | litigated in the courts.
 T think, however, 1t was to MT. | Slade's interest that he made an ar rangement with the Pacific Pine Lum- Der Company for the reason that while | the litigation was pending he was de- | prived of the interest on his money, | and the same might be tied up from | two to five years.
 Furthermore. I never advised the | board in any way with reference to | entering into contract with the S. E. | Slade Lumber Company, nor as to the construction of that contract. The lat | ter was matter which was prior 1 thereto passed upon by MT. Ford, the | regular attorney of the board in a
 written opinion, which is on record and
 which has been produced at the trial. 1 T never had anything to do what ever with the settlement between the
 Pacific Pine Lumber Company and the
 s. E. Slade Lumber Company This
 was carried on by MT. Slade personally l without any advice from me, although
 he knew what his legal rights were.
 The settlement which he made with
 the lumber company was unknown to l me, and was first intimated by a let
 ter written by MT. Jordan, the attor-
 ney of the Pacific Pine Lumber Com pany, to MT. Ford, who thereupon ad- vised the board of the dismissal of the
 suits, and the s. E. Slade Lumber | Company warrants were thereupon de- l livered.
 My connection with the S. F. Slade Lumber Company ceased on November l, 1887, and existed for period of from
 four to six weeks only. MT. Slade
 stated at the time that he came to me
 Tor advice that he did so because
 Garret McEnerney, whom he desired to
 consult had informed him that he was | so busy in the Fair estate and other | litigation that he could give him no | time
 I have never heard it suggested that | because an attorney had been Consulted
 or advised any individual that there | after his opinions would be tainted in all independent matters in which that Individual might be connected
 never was an attorney for the San
 Francisco Timber Preserving Company. on December 15, 1897, I was called upon | to advise the board as to what action
 they should take with certain bids
 which had been presented to them for
 creosoting piles. The Slade Lumber | Company was not a party to any of
 those bids. The San Francisco Timber 1 Preserving Company was. however, one
 of the bidders, and MT. Slade was part owner in this company. This, however, l do not think l knew until very re- | gently. l gave the board certain ad- vice, which advice had been determined upon, as can be shown concluSively by witnesses, prior to the time when I had any knowledge whatever as to who the | lowest bidder for creosoting piles might | be.
 T further advised the board with ref erence to the preparation of new speci- | fications. What motives actuated me, 1 or the Commissioners, in framing these | specifications will be absolutely demon- strated at the trial. l am only speaking | of the matter of professional ethics in the attempt to construe my conduct in at one time representing the Slade Lumber Company as not being proper.
 "In so far as changes may have been made in the entries of any books of the Timber Preserving Company, which have been produced in court, have no suggestion to make at the present time. That Is a matter which does not con- cern me in the least.
 T have only contended in court that the hearing should be had under the ordinary rules of evidence. If the repu- tations of men are to be determined by what is found in books as to entries in which they have nothing whatever to do, then all the rules of evidence must be revolutioniZed. l am not critic1s1ng the trial court, for the reason that as take it he agrees with me in my inter- pretatiOn Of the law, ana naS Sldteu that unless the connection between the Commissioners and the books Is shown in legal way, the testimony must be disregarded and stricken out"
 Not all the truth respecting the deal ings of the Slade Lumber Company with the Harbor Board has come out. Tn the latter part of February. 1897, Slade's contract to furnish lumber to the commission expired and new bids were called for. Just previous to that time Slade had been receiving about S13 per thousand feet for lumber, as called for in his contract. According to the books in the office of the secre- tary of the commission the orders for lumber had been in quantities from two to five thousand feet, as the re- pairs and construction of buildings de- manded.
 Only a day or so before the opening of the bids for furnishing this material for the ensuing year Superintendent Patterson put in an order with Slade for the enormous quantity of 150.OOO feet of 4xS pine lumber at the old price of SIS per thousand feet. The excuse given at the time was that the lumber was for urgent repairs" The urgency Qx,@x~ t1A