The San Francisco call., 1898-11-16

and supposed I owned. l will also say that the lessees paid for all the repairs to their buildings. and l do not believe t-1e e city ever spent S1 for repairs on any or the property until the original lessees sur rendered their leases, notwithstanding the assertion is made now in support or ,,9 Ine present lease that the city was oDllBeu to keep the buildings in repair. put ll the elevator that is still in place Tn my building, and the city did not even keep the sidewalks in repair, that expense 1dil- ing on the lessees
 Tn 1895, upon the expiration or our original lease, we sought to enter lnIo d new lease, but the matter was held III abeyance and we were told we could con tinue in possession from month to monIH under the old terms. Some of the lesSeeS gave notice that they would remove tneir buildings at once and the city began suit to prevent such a step. Judge SeaWell decided that the buildings belonged to the ed to the Supreme Court. That body forgetful of a decision 1t rendered III loo1 reversed itself and Judge SeaWell ana gave the buildings to the city. That was in october. 1897. Prior to that time we had remained in undisturbed possession of the premises and members Of the pres ent Board of Education had repeateuly against us we would be gwen every op- portunity to renew our leases.
 Director Wnller was ba6 o6e Known ST tn0se his father for many years and 1t was through him that I met Sam. The latter was most cordial and promised me on on seget4i ,it1bt After the Supreme Court decision NC, Cormack, McGrath and myself called upon Director Burns 1 Mr thav Mcratb 9sE i in The Cali, in which Burns induced us by smooth words and soft promises to sur render all claim to the, buildings.
 MT Grant produced the following copy of the release, the original being signed by the lessees:
 To the Board of Education of the City and County of San Francisco: The uhaerslghgo lola tIa hereby admits the ownership of your honorapie hoard of the improvements now standing upon the portion of the school lot on the corner oi T Market and Fifth streets in the City ana County of San Francisco, occupied by the ui- dersigned or his tenants.
 Dated October 1s iS97-
 Continuing. MT. Grant said: That ended our possession of the premises. On the second of the following month, NO vember, I sent my agent out to the Ol.y Hall with the money lsb tG pay of the le Beard of Education refused to accept 1t, saving that he had been instructed by WalieT not to take it. imnediately caiIeo @ rdis1Iy on H nly and sat down beside me. When 1 told him of Welsh's action he jumped up, ana with the remark that 9 wouad snd has1 GsI,se1 e4 away without another word ',
 1T was convinced then that IL was all cut and dried to shut us out or the prop, l, erty, and my conviction was strengthenteo when read the proposal for bids TOT the new lease. It was so incoherent that one could not make head or tail of it, while the conditions imposed were so conillct- ing that nobody could live up to them. The lessees held conference, put II was too late to take concerted acton. HOW ever, I had my bid prepared and cerIi- i fled check for $5000 on the Bank or Call fornia ready. My lawyer. had also pre- pared a protest against the wordlng or the proposal. and asking that new pro posal be advertised for Director Armer was given this protest, and at the meet ing of the board on December $, lS9i, when final action was to be taken, he an nounced that he had a protest and asked that 1t be read. Waller Jumped up ana moved that the board proceed to open bids, the motion being carried saw that the board did not intend to giVe us any show whatever, so l did not send Tn my bid at all
 That is my knowledge of the awarding of the new lease, and it is not surprislng that 1 place full credence in MT. key holds charges against the board.
 Director Bantel denies that he was one of the members who were banded together to secure the lease for the San Francesca Company. as alleged in Reynolds com plaint. MT. Bantel asserts, and his as- sertion Is borne out by the minutes or the board, that he opposed the award or the lease and fought 1t from first to last
 D. c. Fitzpatrick, the expert employed by the Grand Jury to investigate the af- fairs of the Board of Education, is pre- pairing a detailed statement or the finances of the board since 1t has been in office