The San Francisco call., 1910-01-11
BOARD AGAINST
SPRING VALLEY
Supervisors Refuse to Pass the
Resolution Indorsing Both
Water Projects
Hayden, on Floor, Defends City
Attorney Longs Opinion
of Plants Value

The new board of supervisors, voting
II TO I, refused to pass a resolution
yesterday urging the voters to support
both water propositions. The union
labor members, with the exception of
Supervisor Loughery. opposed the
measure Loughery was formerly Sec
retary of the board OF works and re-
ceived the top vote for supervisor at
the last election.
The resolution was introduced by
Supervisor Murdoch as an expression
of his own views, "and not in the hope
of changing the views of any member
of the board 1t recited that "the
board of supervisors is advised by law
yers of the highest standing that the
amount of the bonds required for both
projects is well within the bonding
capacity of the city as fixed by the
charter" and proceeded to the follow
ing resolution:
"Resolved, that the voters of the
city be urged to vote at the election to
be held January IA for proposition No.
! and for proposition. No. 2. to the emo
that San Francisco may secure COM
plete and adequate water supply, both
for the present and for the future"
DISCUSSION SPICY
Hooks and Cutten were quick to sec
ond the resolution. Then the discus
sion began, spicy and pointed
Mr. Murdoek referred to pure
water and tearing up the streets, >"
interposed Mccarthy from the chair,
with an infection of voice that left
his meaning to be inferred.
Loughery suggested that the resolu-
tion be referred to the public utilities
Tho i'm
mediate consideration. Nelson thought
the subject should be covered in two
resolutions.
II would like to see the Hetch Hetchy
adopted he said, and for that reason
think the resolutions should be segre-
gated
In no place is the name eHetcn
Hetchy mentioned" volunteered the
mayor TT refers tc a volume of pure
water that might be brought from Aus
tralia."
IF not acceptable said Murdock, 'it
can be voted down"
The mayor repeated his conviction
that Spring Valley should be defeated.
Deasy voted Aye" A kissing warn
ing came from the vicinity of the chair.
and Hagerty. the clerk, walked over
and whispered something in his ear.
Il change my vote to No, an
nounced Deasy before the end of the
roll was reached. Il did not exactly
understand what We are voting on"
Supervisor Hayden spoke briefly in
explanation of his vote when his name
was reached.
.@I am voting now for both PROPOSE
tions," he said, and that is the way l
intend to vote January IA. The ques-
tion has been discussed al length in the
city The points have been raised that
the city would be overbonded and also
that the plant is not worth the money.
This board for legal guidance, must
rely upon the city attorney of San
Francisco. ] know him and 1 am
familiar with his capacity as lawyer.
The city attorney has Investigated this
matter thoroughly For the next two
years, in all matters that come before
il, this board should seek the advice of
the city attorney. / will follow his
advice ! vote aye on this resolution.
The mayor turned to the supervisor.
The chair asks this question: The
supervisor says he is well acquainted
with the city attorney. How do you
reconcile the facts that the city attor-'
ney argued in court that the Spring
valley plant was worth s22 600. 900 and
now goes out and argues it is worth
$4,000, DOOR
The question of valuation for rate
fixing purposes and that for purchase
are different replied Hayden. THE
citv attorney has given the matter
careful attention. This board is hardly
in a position to give the people an In
telligent opinion on the problem
The roll call continued with the fol-
lowing result:
For the esolution-Bancroft, Cut
ten. Harris, Hayden, Hooks, Loughery,
Murdock-7.
Against the resolution-Deasy. Healy.
Herget. Kelly, Knowles, Mclaughlin.
Minehan. Nelson, O'Dowd, Pugh,
Walsh--11.