The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-11-13
CITY HALL SOUND,
EXPERTS ASSERT
Afidavits Declare Building Is
Not in Ruins and Seek to
Prevent Demolition
Repairs on Big Structure Vari-
ously Estimated at From
100000 to S2,O0O,OOO

The city hall is not in ruins" Al
though appearances might lead some
people TO think the contrary, this state
ment was made in an affidavit by
George +. Duffey, ex-president of the
board of public works. filed in Judge
Seawelfs court yesterday by the plain
tiff in the suit of Frank j. Sullivan to
restrain the city from demolishing the
structure.
Other affidavits signed BY builders
and structural experts asserted Mat
the structure can easily be restored,
that no part of it is unsafe, and that
the dome is intact so far as its vital
elements are concerned. After lengthy
argument between counsel the case
went over to this morning for further
hearing.
Duffey, besides asserting that the
hall is not in ruins, is not cracked, is
not menace to life or nuisance, but
is solid mass of thick walls and
solid foundations, insisted that the part
restored after the fire was in a worse
condition than the McAllister street
front and the part east of the dome.
He says he dropped a plumb line from
the top OF the dome land found its
lines most perfect" The corridors.
stairways and elevator cage are in
good order, he asserts. The walls would
resist any number of earthquake
shocks, and the whole building can be
easily restored for a moderate sum.
says Duffey.
Frank 7. Shea, an architect. in an
affidavit also asserts that the greater
part OF the hall can be restored. and
says that many buildings in which the
hre and earthquake damage exceeded
go per cent were restored The city
hail, according to Shea. is in good con-
ditfon structurally, except in few
n
ejaculation could overturn the dome,
Shea declares
Grant Fee. general contractor and
builder; M. ". Brady, contractor, build
er and master mason, and A. L. O'Brien.
structural engineer, filed affidavits
alike In their terms, asserting that the
hall could easily be restored and that
it is unprecedented in the history of
the world to first tear down a build
ing structurally sound, and worth at
least $2,OOO,000, and then have plans
and specifications for a new building
prepared. Fee says the hall could be
restored for 100000. Brady and
o'Brien say it would cost $4,000, 600
Assistant City Attorney Jesse Stein
mart argued at length that it was dis
efet1onary with the supervisors whether
or not the hall should be demolished
and that unless there was an absolute
abuse of discretion the court could not
substitute it's discretion. In answer to
the contention of Sullivan that the
100000 to be spent for tearing down
the ruins Is proposed to be taken from
budget appropriation for the repair
and construction of public buildings"
Steinhart held that demolition of the
ruins came within that definition. mas
much as 1t was intended to prepare the
site for construction of new building
and also to render safe the part now
IN use. Steinhart contended further
that Sullivan has no standing in court
because he could not show that he had
sustained damage.
Attorney w. l. Brobeck argued on
behalf OF the plaintiff. His talk was
deeply technical, and consisted chiefly
of an elaboration of his contention that
under the charter the supervisors could
not use money appropriated for repairs
and construction in the work of de-
molishing the city hall.