The San Francisco call., 1898-11-30

 ARE INDIGNANT
Deny They Ever Received a Cent From Sher-
 man.

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 29-"Moses H. Sherman never expended sixty thou sand dollars in bribing the members of the Los Angeles City Council of 1890, nor the members of Aldermanic body who held office in 1891, to secure the passage of the ordinances which granted franchises to various parties for electric street railways, and which franchises afterWard beca-le the prop erty of the Los Angeles Consolidated Railway Company"
 This statement was made to-day by Jacob Frankenfeld, who was President of the City Council in 1890. That was the Council which passed the original franchise secured by Sherman interests in this city. MT. Frankenfield is re- tired capitalist. He was formerly president of the~California Bank in this citv and is highly respected. In dis cuesing the matter of the franchises further the gentleman said:
 "The franchise you refer to was se-s cured in the name of MT. Carr, who was at that time, believe, president, or an other official of the Peoples Home Saw ings Bank. A. w. Barrett, now adju- tant general of the State. acted as the agent of Carr, and appeared before the Council in his interest. He made a strong presentation and urged the adoption of the ordinance. We inVest1- gated the matter and became conV1nced that the application for the franchise was made in good faith. We felt as- sured that Carr had ample capital be- hind him, and we voted unanimously to award it to him. Henry T. Hazard was Mayor of the city at the time. He vetoed the franchise ordinance, and we passed it over his veto. l never heard or knew of one dollar being used to 1n- f1uence a vote in favor of the franchise. At the time it was granted the people of the town were only too glad to give anything of that character that tended to secure the investment of capital here"
 One of the members of the Council of 1890 was A. c. Shafer, who represented the Fifth Ward He was very indig- nant to-day when questioned as to the use of money to secure the adoption of the Carr franchise. MT. Shafer said:
 Tt is simply preposterous for any one to suppose or think that money was used to bribe the Councilmen to vote for those franchises. We were only too glad to have the opportunity to do so. When the application was first put in by Carr, A. W. Barrett ap- peared as his agent and general rep resentative. At that time the members of the Council were not informed as to whether the franchise was being asked for by parties who were in good faith. Barrett, upon learning of this, asked that some one be sent to San Francisco to investigate. He said that he would present parties who would give assur- ances that if the franchise was grant ed there was capital on hand to build the road. 1 was selected by the Council to make an investigation. At my own r {A Cnr E7rarN nic,an and remained there one week. While there I was for the first time presented to M. H. Sherman. I met the McDon- aids, Mir. Carr and several other par ties whose names l do not now recall. They assured me that all the capital was secured that was needed, and that If the franchise was granted work un- der it's terms would commence immedi ately. I became convinced that what these people told me was true, re- turned to Los Angeles and so reported to my confreres in the Council. The ordinance granting the franchise was then passed by a unanimous vote. The only opposition to 1t in this entire com rnunity was from the cable road people. It did not cost any money to get every vote in the Council for this ordinance. and I never before heard it intimated that any money was spent for this pur- pose"
 W the city, and who vetoed the ordinance granting the franchise, was seen, and in exclamation of his veto said: i"I re- fused to sign it for the reason that I did not think the people of the city had had time to consider the value of the franchise the Council was giving. Then, too, 1t paralleled the franchise of the Cable Railway Company, and I did not think that it was just to the stockhold- CTS in that corporation, who had in vested their money, to give another company the right to build a line that would divide the patronage. I vetoed the ordinance, but no one ever at tempted to bribe me or to unduly in f1uence me to sign it. It would have been a sorry day for the misguided in dividual who would have attempted 1t"
 F. M Nickell. D. McGarry. Daniel Innes, Samuel Rees. Theodore Summer land and W. H. Bonsall. members of the Council of 1891. which body passed a number of ordinances granting fran chises on side streets to the Sherman interests, were seen. All of these gen. tlemen indignantly denied that any money consideration was paid to them to secure favorable action on the ordi- nances in question.
 James Brown represented the Seventh Ward in the Council of 1890. He voted for the Carr franchise. He was de- feated for reelection in December of 1890, and when Sherman's road began operation he became a motorman. He has since continued in this service. and Is to this day engaged in that humble capacity. He insists that he got his position on his merits, and that the job was not mentioned at the time he voted for the franchise