Page images
PDF
EPUB

MEMORIAL.

To the San Francisco Legislatire Delegation :

Your memorialists respectfully represent that Assembly Bill No. 460, now referred to your delegation, proposes to grant to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco power to grade Francisco Street, between Kearny and Dupont Streets, to the official grade. The expense of such work will be assessed upon the property along the line thereof, and your memorialists, composing the entire body of property owners along the said line, beg leave to present the following objections to the passage of the said bill:

The official grade of Francisco Street, at the intersection of Dupont Street, is fifty feet above base, and at the intersection of Kearny Street is at base. The length of the block from Dupont to Kearny Street is four hundred and twelve feet and six inches (4122), thus making a fall along the line of the proposed cut of one foot in about eight-a grade impossible for any practical purpose. The present natural elevation of Francisco Street, between Dupont and Kearny, and of the property bordering thereon, is over eighty feet above base. Grading the street, therefore, would leave our property on the edge of a precipice of at least eighty feet, with no possible access to it. The material of the street is solid rock, and the mere cost of removing it would be infinitely more than the value of the property, thus practically amounting to confiscation. The property would be left without the means of getting at it. Add, then, the cost of grading the lots (if that were possible) to make them accessible to the street, and one will readily perceive the absurd disproportion between the cost on the one hand and the benefit on the other. But it would be impossible to grade the property down to the proposed grade of Francisco Street and leave it habitable.

Chestnut Street is the street next south from Francisco Street. Chestnut Street, between Dupont and Kearny Streets, has an average elevation of about one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet above base. The length of the block between Chestnut and Francisco Street is two hundred and seventy-five (275) feet. The grade, therefore, of the property from Chestnut to Francisco Street would be a fall of one foot in, say, two and a fourth (21). It would be impossible to make use of the property on such a grade.

As we have shown above, the grading of Francisco Street, as proposed by the bill, while it would be ruinous to the property along the line of the work, would not give a thoroughfare of any practical value, the grade being one (1) foot in eight (8). The only way to niake a thoroughfare of that street would be to tunnel the street from a point where there would be an easy access to the tunnel, through

------

to Kearny Street, which would cost much less than cutting the street down bodily.

The tunnel might be made twenty (20) feet wide at any height required, and less than one thousand (1000) feet in length, and would leave room on each side of the cut approaching it for a roadway of seventeen (17) feet wide, with sidewalks eight (8) feet wide. Of course a tunnel would not be of the slightest benefit to the property along the line of the street on the top of the hill, and the cost of the work should therefore be a general charge on the city and county at large. But in fact there is no present necessity for an additional thoroughfare. Bay Street, next to Francisco Street, on the north, is graded and filled to a dead level from Jones Street around the city front. It is much wider than Francisco Street, and furnishes ample accommodation as a thoroughfare.

The bill in question proposes a work to be performed for the benefit (if there be any benefit at all in it) of parties living at a distance from the work, at the expense of the property owners along the line, who are not only not benefited in the slightest degree, but whose property will be absolutely confiscated and taken from them. It is the "Second Street Cut over again in an aggravated form; because if we could afford to cut down our property to the line of the proposed grade, then the property in the rear of us would be utterly destroyed, and so on to the top of Telegraph Hill. The truth is, that any work of this character to be undertaken in the locality in question must be part of a general system comprehending the whole of Telegraph Hill,

Annexed hereto will be found copies of the official grade maps and other diagrams, showing what condition the adjoining property would be left in should the proposed bill become a law.

And your memorialists will ever pray, etc.

MEMORIAL

OF

MARY M. SPRINGER,

WIDOW AND HEIR OF THOMAS A. SPRINGER,

LATE STATE PRINTER, DECEASED.

MEMORIAL.

To the Honorables the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, in

Legislature assembled :

[ocr errors]

Mary M. Springer would most respectfully represent to your honorable bodies that she is the widow, and assignee of all the other heirs, and the duly appointed and qualified Administratrix of the estate of Thomas A. Springer, late State Printer of this State, who died on the twenty-third day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-four.

That on the first day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-two, a concurrent resolution was adopted by the Legislature of this State, then here in session, which authorized the printing by said State Printer of ten thousand copies of the Transactions of the State Agricultural Society; and on April first, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-two, another concurrent resolution was adopted by said Legislature, authorizing the printing of only five thousand copies of the said Transactions, and rescinding the resolution first adopted.

That under said resolution of February first, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and before he had notice of its recision by that of April first, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, said State Printer had nearly completed the entire ten thousand copies of said Transactions, the whole thereof being in type, and the press work done, with the exception of from fifty to sixty pages thereof.

That said State Printer completed and delivered the entire ten thousand copies to the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture.

That five thousand copies of said Transactions have been paid for, and no more.

That said State Printer submitted his claim for printing the remaining five thousand copies of said Transactions to the State Board of Examiners, amounting to the sum of four thousand eight hundred and sixteen and sixty one-hundredths dollars, upon which said Board reported as follows:

"The Board of Examiners had no power to go beyond the terms expressed in the resolution of April first. The State Printer was notified that the number was cut down. If he had performed any work on the second five thousand he should then have stopped, and had the work estimated. He had no right to proceed with the work in order to make a charge against the State. There is not sufficient evidence before us from which we can determine the amount of work actually done on the second five thousand."

[ocr errors]

Your memorialist would further most respectfully represent, that accounts of said State Printer to the amount of eight thousand nine hundred and fifty-three and fifteen one-hundredths dollars have been duly experted on and allowed by the State Printing Expert, and by said Board of Examiners, no part of which has ever been paid.

That subsequently, owing to objections made by the late Controller of State, said Board of Examiners caused said State Printing Expert, assisted by Samuel Pope, a skillful and experienced printer to reëxamine these accounts, and upon such reëxamination, and their report thereon, said Board of Examiners report as follows:

MEMORIAL AND

AND PETITION

"The Board are compelled, from the nature of the claims of the State Printer, to rely upon the opinion of an Expert, and are authorized by law to employ one. They have entire confidence in the competency and integrity of Mr. E. G. Jefferis, who now acts in that capacity, and believe the rules he has adopted for his guidance are as fair an application of the law as can be arrived at. When this claim came before the Board in its present shape they requested the Expert, with Mr. Samuel Pope, a practical printer of high standing, to reëxamine the work. They append the report of the Expert after such reëxamination, and concur in its conclusion, that under a fair construction of the law the amount due the State Printer upon these claims is eight thousand five hundred and thirty-two and thirty-three one-hundredths ($8,532 33) dollars."

TO THE

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN RELATION TO

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

MEMORIAL AND PETITION.

SACRAMENTO, March 13th, 1875.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee composed of the San

Francisco Assembly Delegation:

The question of providing the City and County of San Francisco with a proper system of water-works, which shall have the capacity of furnishing the people of that city with a supply of pure fresh water, adequate in the present, and capable of being largely increased in the near future, is one of the most important, if it be not the most important question that has come before your honorable committee during this session of the Legislature, either for your deliberation or for your action.

As to the amount of money involved, it is greater than all the legislation that has been, or is likely to be, enacted by this Legislature. In the proper study of this important problem, which has been thrust upon you for solution, we take for granted you will listen to, if not be influenced by, such facts and figures which those heretofore and now identified with this same question have been enabled to collate, and which may tend to aid you in recommending and legislating intelligently, justly, and impartially upon this matter, so important to the constituency you immediately represent. We, therefore, gentlemen, members of the Assembly representing the people of the City and County of San Francisco in the Legislature of California, very respectfully beg leave to protest and petition you against the passage of the bill called the Dean Substitute for Senate Bill No. 297, and which is now pending before your honorable committee, the authorship of which has been repudiated by Senator Dean, its putative author, upon the floor of the Senate, and which has for its object the acquisition by the City and County of San Francisco of the special properties of the Spring Valley Water Company, of the Laguna de la Merced, and of the San Mateo Water-works and its appendages, and none other.

In the outset, we state to you that we represent another and different water-supply, seeking to supply San Francisco with all the water she wants, and capable of furnishing more than she will ever need; and deeming, as we do, that the contemplated enactment of this bill into a law would be an injustice to the general public of San Francisco, and especially to the interests we are here to represent, we have exercised the right of petition to you-a right guaranteed to the humblest citizen in the land. If the Legislature proposes to constitute itself into a Water Commission, and to select and fix upon the

[graphic]
[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »