The San Francisco call., 1910-01-15

for and 1.45S against. The thirty-fifth
district. in which the Mission Dolores
Is situated, tried hard to roll up the
two-thfrds required but failed, the vote
being 1910 TO S3S. The Western addl-
ton polled nearly 65 per cent in favor
Of Spring Valley. the vote in the thirty
eighth being 1,643 to S96. The thirty
third district which reaches our 70
ocean View. voiced its opposition by
voting .971 for and 1,453 against,
percentage of 81.
The banner district for Spring Valley
was the forty-f1rst, in which falls IA
cif1c avenue. The vote was 1855 for and
547 against. a percentage OF Io~ The
forty-second and forty-third districts,
comprising the burned district Just east
OF van Ness avenue. were close contend
ers. with a percentage of IA The for
tieth. the northern part OF the Western
addition. had a vote of 73 per cent in
favor of purchasing Spring Valley,
while the thirty ninth, which embraces
the Richmond and Sunset districts, fol-
lowed with 72 per cent on it's big vote
of 3.4s3 to 1851. The thirty-seventh
district, which is the panhandle section,
netted II per cent on vote OF 1855 to
1,06s.
with the city almost a unit in voting
s45 OOO. 900 for the Hetch Hetchy propo-
sition. there were still some interesting
facts in connection with the voting.
Eleven precincts gave solid votes for
the proposition, not vote being re-
corded against it. These precincts were
the first and third Of the twenty-ninth
district the twenty-first of the thirty
second district, the eleventh of the
thfrty-fsfth district, the eighth of the
thirty-sixth district, the fifteenth and
nineteenth of the fortieth district, the
sixth and thirteenth of the forty-fifth
district and the second and fifth of the
thirtieth district
TENDERLoIN AGAINST
SPRING VALLEY
While the third precinct of the twen-
ty-nfnth district gave 100 to nothing on
Hetch Hetchy, an adverse vote of 81 for
and So against Spring Valley was
polled. The twenty first precinct Of the
thirty-second district voted unanimous
lv for Hetch Hetchy, while Spring VAL
lev got SO against 40. There were few
other precincts that gave less than half
their votes for Spring Valley. The deni-
zens of the Barbary coast had their
program well planned, for they voted
for Hetch Hetchy 14s to and opposed
Spring Valley with SO votes for and 101
against.
The vote was much lighter than that
on the Geary street railroad proposition
two weeks ago, even though much more
money was involved, but this was due
to the apathy of many voters who
knew that the sentiment was over
whelmingly in favor of the Hetch
Hetchy project. and so their votes
would not be needed.
LIGHT VOTE IN MORNING
Voting was unusually light during
the first part of the day. The large
percentage OF votes ordinarily cast by
the wofkingmen early in the mornin 3
was not in evidence. At noon Regis
trar Zemansky estimated that the total
would be about 10000. But the voters
got busy in the afternoon and ran the
total up to 34,939, which meant that
1928 votes were required to carry
either proposition. The totals showed
that Hetch Hechy had 1858 votes to
spare, while Spring Valley lacked 1924.
IT was one of the quietest election
days ever experienced in the registrar $
Office. Not a single complaint reached
his office during the day. His only con-
Germ during the hours just preceding