The San Francisco call., 1908-03-06
TELLS WHY WATER
BOARD RESIGNED
Major McKinstry an Important
Witness In Tevis=BuIletin
Libel Case
Says Engineers Refused to Be
Confined to Bay Cities
Company's Scheme

when the board OF examining engi-
neers appointed by former Mayor
Schmitz TO investigate and determine
the merits OF five proposed water sys-
tens for the city of San Francisco
learned that two weeks time was
deemed SUFFICIENT in which TO reach a
conclusion, the board as a whole and
as individuals rendered their resigna-
tions.
Information also came to the MEM
bers of Schmitz' specially appointeo
board that all projects presented for
investigation by the members of the
water committee OF the board of su-
perVisors were TO be eliminated, with
the exception of the Bay Cities water
company's scheme. We knew then that
we could not serve the people of San
Francisco to their best advantage and
this. too, prompted our resignation"
These statements made by Major
Charles II. McKinstry, civil and mill
tary engineer of the United States
army. on the witness stand during the
proceedings of the vis-Bulletin libel
suit before Judge Dooling yesterday,
were the most important that have
been made. aside from the promises of
IS testified 10 by former Supervisors
Phillips. Wilson and Gallagher.
Were not reports by engineers fur
nished you at the time covering the
different projects to be investigated
sufficiently complete so as TO have led
you TO pass upon the quantity and
quality OF the water TO be supplied the
city in the case of adoption by the
people?" asked Hon Cook, assistant
district attorney
REPORTS AND MAPS INCOMPLETE
The reports and maps and other in
formation that we We're given were
very incomplete. aside from those re-
lating TO the Bay Cities company's
project" replied Major McKinstry.
Asked as to what amount of water
could be supplied the city. according to
the reports of the Bay Cities scheme.
McKinstry said that. assuming the
facts in the reports TO be true the city
could at once avail Itself Of about
eo,000,0OO gallons a day and that ulti-
mately the supply would reach 2oO.-
100000 gallons a day. Following this
Mckinstry said that according to in
structions contained in communications
from the mayor any investigation made
by the board of engineers would of
necessity require from six months to
one years time.
Questioned further by Cook, the wit
ness replied:
1T was our understanding that we
were TO select from the projects pro-
posed that which would be the best for
the people of San Francisco. As pro-
tessional men we could not Justly de-
termine this unless we were given
ample time While there was nothing
in the reports upon the Bay Cities
scheme that indicated untruths, and de-
spite the fact that we realized the re-
ports had been compiled by men in
the employ Of that company, 1t was
our duty 10 make q personal investiga-
tion before we could honestly state so
10 the people Of San Francisco We
TOOK II that the object was not merely
10 md project that would suffice for
the city, but to determine which was
the best for the city's needs By elimi-
mating the feature Of comparison and
by limiting the time in which to COM
plete the work we saw that it would
be impossible for US TO fulfill our
duties to the best OF our ability"
ILL FEELING TOWARD TEVIs
Cook thereupon attempted to show
the existence of i'll feeling between Nc
kinstry and Tevis. McKinstry replied
that he did not carry i'll feeling toward
Tevis because he (McKinstry) believed
Tevls had sought to injure him. and
later said that one Mr. Bennett whom
he believed TO be in the employ of
Tevis. had circulated reports to the ef
fect that McKinstry had been reached
by the Spring Valley water company"
The witness explained that this infor-
mauon did not reach him until long
efter the board had resigned. and thar
sor that reason IT was impossible to
have Influenced him in any manner.
Prof G d. Marks OF Stanford uni-
Fersity and Andrew NJ. Hunt, who were
appointed on the Schmitz board with
Mcklnstry, corroborated the testimony
OF the latter.
Among the other witnesses on the
stand yesterday was former Supervisor
James L. Gallagher. The latter mere
9y repeated the testimony of Phfllins
sno Wilson, also former supervisors on
the water committee during the
Schmltz administration. TO the effect
tnat Ruef at all times prepared the re-
ports on the water question. drew nm
the resolutions and urged the pass;nq
OF the water project of the Bay Cities
water company. on the grounds that
the time was ripe and there wouId he
larger sum OF money in it for tbn
board members than there had been T.,
anything that had come before tba
board Gallagher added the inforn,a- :
htoH thdt lheIe was never a dissenting
voice among the members of the board
or SUPERVISORS then In office to any OF
the suggestions made by Abe Rues
relative to any OF the water questions
This statement on the part OF Gal
lagher contradicted Wilson's testinaonv v
10 the effect that when he discovered
the resolutions drawn up eliminated
consideration of the Hetch- Hetchy svs-
tenn he refused to become a party
tnereto- Gallagher said the elimina-
tion OF the consideration of the EIa+-1,
Hetchy system was done only for fbe
purpose Of making room for the con-
sideration Of other schemes. and that
at the time it was so regarded by the
members Of the water committee and
the other supervisors.