The San Francisco call., 1905-05-16
SAY OFFICIALS
HIDE RECORDS
Holbrool, Merrill & Stetson
Complain of Methods OF
Board of Public Works
AFFIDAyIIS ARE FILED
Subserviency to Unions Is
Alleged to Influence the
Business of Department

Employees of Holbrook. Merrill &
Stetson filed aff1davits in Judge Sea-
wells court yesterday calculated to
cast serious reflections on the methods
pursued by the Board of Public Works
to carry out it's threat to tear UP a
spur track connecting the firms ware
house with the railroad and construct
ed under authorization of an ordinance
passed by the Board OF. Supervisors.
The firm petitioned for an injunction
to restrain the board from carrying out
its threat, with the result that an or
der to show cause was issued and the
board responded yesterday. Afhdavits
pointing to the Teamsters' Union as
the influence that is behind the Board
Of Works were fled by Holbrook. Mer-
rill & Stetson.
w. r. Wheeler. who IL In charge OF
the transportation affairs OF the hrm,
signed the following AFFIDAVIT:
II am informed and believe that the
threatened work of destroying said
spur track neither was nor Is intended
to be performed by any Of the employees
Of the Board of Public Works. but by
volunteers not employed in any depart
ment OF the city whatsoever and wholly
unfamiliar with the proper method OF
taking up tracks or separating the
same from main line tracks. the said
formal sanction Of the said Board OF
Public Works
G. p. Ayres, another members OF the
firm, says he saw Herbert Schmttz
when the Mayors brother held the po-
sition OF president of the Board OF Pub
lie Works. and Commissioner Maestret-
tt, and Schmitz said that they had
looked over the premises and did not
wish to give a written permit. suggest
ing that the Board of Supervisors be
asked to pass an ordinance. and said
the Works Board would not interfere
IL the ordinance was passed. Such ac-
tion was taken by the Supervisors and
on January the track was laid.
OPPOSED BY ORGANIZATIONS.
Continuing. Ayres says In his at
f1davit:
No judicial interference was antici-
pated or objection by any one else,
save possibly the Draymen's Associa-
tion or the Teamsters' Union. both OF
which organizations. as am Informed
and believe, are antagonistic and have
been for a long time past antagonistic
to the laying of any spur tracks which
would obviate the necessity OF hauling
or transferring by wagon or dray any
freight brought In on any railroads
'I am persuaded and verify believe that
the. action of the Board Of Public Works
regarding this plaintiff, in threatening to
remove the said spur track Is arbitrary
and without reason. and Is not made or
intended to be made in good faith; but
that the said threats of said Board OF
Public Works IN the premises are direct
ed against the plaintiff herein solely be-
cause of pressure brought to bear upon
said Board of Public Works by outsiders
who are seeking to block the efforts OF
plaintiff and of the Southern Pacific
Company for purely personal. selfish and
private reasons, and that 1t Is not. the
real desire on, the part of said Board OF
Public Works to remove or disturb said
track or this plaintir at ALL
RECORDS ARE INACCURATE.
Attorney ]. d. Lederman says he went
through records Of the board He found
that of the privileges for twenty-six spur
| tracks only eight owners made written
application to the Board Of Public Works
and five received the desired permit. In
no instance did the records OF the board
show that the board had done any work
Continuing he says:
From my examination Of said records
| 1t is my opinion that the records are not
always reliable. In the instance of ordi-
nance No. 961 of the Supervisors 1t ap-
pears that an application was made to
| the Board of Public Works for permit
to tear up the street. but all of said pa
pers In the matter of such application
from the office of the Board OF Public
Works. and are and for a long time have
been, as I am informed and believe. In
the personal custody of one OF the Com
missioners Of said board
"In the case Of ordinance 1886, wherein
the Supervisors granted to Flora d.
Jones spur-track privilege on Harrison
street, between Nineteenth and Twenti-
| eth, written application was made to
the Board of Public Works for permit
to tear up the street. The records OF
said board show that no action was
| taken thereon and no permit granted.
but, as a matter OF fact, am credibly
J informed and believe that permit in
/ said connection was granted on January
! H. 1906. and that subsequent thereto the
said spur track was actually constructed
! and is now being maintained"
| In the afternoon Herbert Schnitz and
Michael Casey filed afidavits In which
they denied that the Board OF Works had
knowledge that the track was to be con-
structed by Holbrook, Merrill & Stetson.
|. as alleged by the Arm. The case was
then argued in part. 1t win be concluded
| to-day.