The San Francisco call., 1909-11-29
Entire Water Question 10
Be Submitted to Voters
Conference in Mayors Office Results in the
Agreement to Call Election
contlnued from Page 1

cost of $4,000. 600, or a price to be
agreed upon between the members of
the city government and the Spring
Valley company.
FIRST PLAN FAVORED
Our plan would be to submit the
three propositions and bring all our
pressure to bear to insure the passage
of the first proposition" declared SUI
pervisor James A. Johnston.
There were present at the meeting
Mayor Taylor. City Attorney Percy V.
Long, Attorney Curtis Fl. Lindley, Su-
pervisors Thomas Jennings, James
A Johnston Daniel C. Murphy and
Ralph McLeran, Cfty Engineer Marsden
Manson; J. II. Dockweiler. special engi-
neer for the city attorneys office: As
sistant City Attorneys Thomas E.
Haven and John T. Nourse; John e.
Behan. clerk of the board of super
visors; II. A. Mason, expert OF the board
of supervisors; President Charles A.
Day and Commissioner John d. Nc
Gilvray of the board of public works.
The attorneys and Supervisors john
ston and Murphy were present at the
morning conference in Judge Lindley's s
Office
MAYOR OPPOSES COMBINATION
While there was free discussion dur
ing the hour and half in which the
gathering lasted, there was no marked
difference OF opinion among the con-
ferees. and no stress of opposition de-
veloped.
The mayor was not in the fullest ac-
cord with the combination proposition,
as he pointed out there were difficulties
with all omnibus measures. But he
had no objection TO press in such way
as to impede the majority of the COM
mittee
Mason had several other forms OF
propositions to suggest, the most i'm
portant being that the bond election
ballot should be put up to the electorate.
First, the proposition of bonding the
city for s5S,0O0,000 cover the cost of
the most expensive plan, and as sub
sidiary propositions, the question of
which way the money should be ex-
pended. whether of the Lake Eleanor
or the Spring Valley propositions alone,
or for the combination of the two.
TWO-THIRDs VOTE NEEDED
The bond issue measure would have
to pass by two-thirds vote. while the
other questions would be decided by
majority votes This plan was not con-
sidered feasible.
When the conference adjourned it
was understood that the committee
would meet with the Spring Valley
committee in the mayors Office at 10
o clock this morning. The water COM
panys eonferees are President William
Bourn. Frank B. Andersop, president
of the Bank of California, and Thomas
Berry.
The conference of the attorneys was
called for IL o'clock yesterday morn
ing. Judge Lindley was called UP
from his Santa Cruz ranch to consider
the late development. At that confer
ence the two questions discussed were
the power of the city to hold an cleo
ton after January ! and use the great
register as a basis of voting.
ON ELECTION IN JANUARY
City Attorney Long reported that he
had satisfied himself that the election
could be held in January and the pres
ent register employed. He reported to
that effect at the afternoon conference.
1t would be impossible for bond cleo
tion on the new propositions to be
held before January 4. The board of
supervisors has already called a special
bond election on the Lake Eleanor prof.
ect for December 29, which, however,
will be Cancelled if it is decided TO
submit the Spring Valleys offer to the
public BY some il is held that it must
be submitted.
When the afternoon conference was
called TO order Long Immediately out
lined the three alternate forms of ques-
tlons which would be submitted to the
voters and which were quoted above.
MAYOR STATES HIS STAND
I am opposed to have the matter
submitted to the people in any way
that would hazard the TuoIumne river
and Lake Eleanor project" said Mayor
Taylor
The question of the Lake Eleanor
proposition should be put before the
people alone. i am opposed to any
omnibus measures. The lead of the
Spring Valley might sink the Sierra
proposition, which we desire most. We
should submit the Tuoiumne river prop
osition by itself. But the people must
have the right to say whether or not
they will pay $4,000 900 for the Spring
Valley system or any less.
Il doubt If we would be justified in
rejecting the Spring Valley offer with
out submitting it to the people. For
this is the first definite offer we have
had from the company. The other
offers which. from time to time the
company has made. have not been
worth the paper they have been written
on. But here is something definite.
ISSUE Is MOMENTOUS
This is the most momentous issue
we have been called upon to meet
during our administration, and don't
let us make the mistake of complicatine
two propositions. l would not like to
see a good proposition carry into force
a bad one. Here we have the Tuolumne
project as a definite issue, and the
Spring Valley offer as definite prop