The San Francisco call. [volume], August 02, 1895, Page 14, Image 14

About The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913

Image provided by: University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

                
14
WITNESS CLARK WILL NOT HELP DURRANT
He Did Not See Blanche
Lamont on the Fate
ful Day.
ADMITS HIS MISTAKE.
Letters Sent to His Wife and
to Counsel for the
Defense.
ADDITIONAL JURORS SWORN
Six Men Secured to Weigh Evidence
for and Against the Ac
cused.
THE DURRANT CASE IN A MINUTE
BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
Six jurors have been secured to try William
Henry Theodore Durrant, for the murder of
Blanche Lamont. They are:
Thomas W. Seiberlich.
Irwin J. Truman.
M. R. Dempster.
Nathan Crocker.
Walter S. Brown.
Charles P. Nathan.
The two last-named were secured yester
day after the examination of a number of
veniremen. To the last, Mr. Nathan, the de
fense interposed an objection on the ground
that he had formed an opinion on the case,
but, after a few questions by the court, Mr.
Nathan stated that he could set the opinion
aside and try the case fairly and impartially.
His Honor thereupon disallowed the challenge,
and the defense refusing to exercise the per
emptory challenge on Mr. Nathan, renewed its
original challenge for cause and had an ex
ception noted.
Before adjournment of the case till Monday,
Judge Murphy ordered a venire of 300 names
drawn, returnable 100 Monday morning, 50
Tuesday, 100 Wednesday and 50 Thursday.
It is thought that before this number is ex
hausted the jury will have been secured.
Captain Lees has a statement from Earl H.
Mills, an attorney, to the effect that Mrs.
H. Clark, wife of the new witness for the de
fense, called upon him and stated that her
husband must have been mistaken in saying
he met Blanche Lamont on April 3. Mrs.
Clark gives very strong reasons, and backs
them up by a letter from her husband, in
which he says he has written a letter to Mr.
Deuprey in which he states that he is mis
taken as to the date upon which he saw Miss
Lamont.
There will be hundreds of columns of
testimony in the Durrant trial that not
even the vilest and most sensational of
the "flash" Eastern papers would dare to
publish for fear of incurring the disap
proval of their patrons; consequently no
one need expect to have all the testimony
presented in the daily press of this City.
All the newspapers of San Francisco will
refuse to publish that great mass of objec
tionable matter. In this refusal the papers
will be justified. There may, however, be
a divergence in regard to the latitude
taken by the several editors in handling
this branch of the case. The Call's posi
tion in this regard has already been out
lined and will be followed regardless of the
policy pursued by others. There is a
definite line of demarcation between that
which is decent and that which is inde
cent. In sensational journalism there seems
to be an effort to constantly hover near that
hateful line, and even a step beyond is some
times risked if it may be ventured without
calling forth summary condemnation by the
public. The Call is guided by a different
principle. Its effort is not to approach the
fatal line as near as may be, but to avoid it
as far as -possible. This shall be the course
pursued by The Call in reporting the
Durrant case. All the pertinent arid im
portant news of the trial will be fully and
faithfully set forth with perfect impartial
ity, but the minute details of offensive and
objectionable features will be eliminated
in order that no clean mind may be sullied
in perusing a comprehensive report of the
case. This will not detract from the news
value of the account published, but will
rather increase the worth of The Call's
report to the intelligent and careful reader.
The search for jurors in the Durrant case
was resumed with new energy in Judge
Murphy's department yesterday morning.
The defendant was on hand, looking
brighter and more at ease for some days,
and called a happy smile to his face as his
father and mother came in and saluted
him.
When the court had been rapped to
order, the clerk was instructed to call the
names of those who had been summoned
on the last venire, and all but twenty-two
of the seventy-five responded. Attach
ments were ordered issued for the ab
sentees, returnable Monday, and Judge
Murphy announced his readiness to listen
to those who had excuses to offer. At his
request that those wishing to be excused
should come forward, the entire panel,
almost, rose as one man and started for
the railing. His Honor made a sarcastic
remark to the effect that he was clad to see
how eager the gentlemen present were to
do their duty, and then he bent his ear to
listen to their stories.
John A. Hammersmith and Marion Lev
intritt were excused on the ground that
they were members of the Grand Jury
and Louis Bergerot on the ground of the
insufficiency of his acquaintance with the
English language. By reason of the fact that
jury duty would cause a material injury to
their business, Thomas A. Farless, M.
Kaiser, William Wettland, Lawrence C.
Cull, John Rosenquist, J. H. Mooser, W.
F. Empey, H. Lohraann, E. F. W. Allen
and R. W. Broderick; on account of physi
cal infirmity, L. Guggenheimer, J. Stone,
M. D. Nolan and J. W. Carroll were ex
cused. AL. Dennison was allowed to go
for the reason that he is an employe of
Uncle Sam and Rev. Thomas Filben by
reason of the fact that he is a clergyman.
Active and retired members of the Na
tional Guard were excused as follows: H.
H. Kohler, I. Leipsig, H. Joost, George
Easton, F. W. Eaton and Richard Wall
man. H. L. Van Winkle was excused on
the ground of non-residence and George
Maxwell by reason of his connection with
the Fire Department.
The regularity with which excuses
poured in annoyed his Honor greatly.
"The fact is," he said, as he allowed one
excuse, "that there is only tne slightest
disposition on the part of the people to do
their duty, and I am tired of it."
The court then ordered seven of the new
panel, together with Robert Hochstadter,
Highest of all in Leavening Power..— Latest U. S. Gov't Resort
_______^f___ & __n._i.4_l. Wtt B \W^W\(F9
*% j___sg__3 rywi_ii._
A-_-_OUJ_J__3CY^INU|RB
who was a holdover from the old one, to
take their places in the box for examina
tion. They did so, as follows, and were
sworn : R. McElroy, W. F. Brown. Joseph
Rosenburg, G. W. Wright, C. A. Maschio,
L. A. Rea and D. Haskell.
District Attorney Barnes repeated his
opening statement of the case and Robert
H. Hockstadter of 1012 Van Ness avenue
was asked concerning his qualifications to
act as* a juror. He had no particular
scruples against the infliction of the death
penalty, but stated that he would not join
in a verdict where the penalty was death
upon circumstantial evidence. He was
challenged by the people and excused.
R. McElroy of Haight and Buchanan
streets had scruples against the convic
tion of a man on circumstantial evidence.
"I would never send a man to the gal
lows," he said, "on circumstantial evi
dence."
He was excused on the challenge of the
prosecution.
Walter S. Brown, doing business at 535
Market street as a silk, cotton and linen
thread merchant, residing at 426 Ellis, was
next examined. He stated that he had no
conscientious scruples against the inflic
tion of the death penalty in proper cases;
and, also, that he would consider circum
stantial evidence and give it all the weight
to which it was entitled.
"Now," said the District Attorney, "if
the circumstantial evidence produced were
sufficient to satisfy you of the guilt of the
defendant, would" you be willing to join in
a verdict of guilty where the result might
be death?"
"I would if the evidence were sufficiently
strong," was the reply.
"Are you acquainted with the defendant,
Durrant, or with any member of his fam
ily?"
"No, sir."
Mr. Brown was unacquainted with any
of the attorneys for the defense, except
Mr. Deuprey, and knew neither George R.
King, the Emmanuel Church organist, his
father, the dentist, or any of the others
whose names had been mixed up in the
case. He was passed by the prosecution.
In answer to questions by Mr. Deuprey
the venireman stated that he had neither
business nor social relations with the ')is
trict Attorney or any person in his office.
He had had no relations with the Police
Department of the City of San Francisco.
He" was unacquainted with the family of
C. G. Noble and had no acquaintance with
any one wh_> had been a witness at the
Coroner's inquest or on the preliminary
examination.
"Do you believe," continued Mr. Deu
prey, "that you could act as a free and im
partial juror, if sworn to try this case be
tween the State and the defendant, solely
as the evidence is given in this court and
under the instructions of this cOurt?"
"I think so."
"Do you believe that circumstantial evi
dence should be taken with a great deal of
caution?" continued Mr. Deuprey.
"Well, I certainly believe that it should
be given weight. I would convict on cir
cumstantial evidence if it were strong
enough."
"You recognize, however, in receiving
circumstantial evidence that it is to be
taken with a great deal of caution, and
that the same rule applies to evidence in
regard to identification— is to say,
, that there is greater liability of mistake in
the matter of the identification of a person
probably than upon any other subject that
might be testified to?"
"I think so," replied Mr. Brown.
"Do you know of any reason at this
time, Mr. Brown, why you should not
and could not fairly and impartially try
his case?"
"I do not," was the reply, and Mr.
Brown was passed for the time.
Joseph Rosenberg of 908 Ellis street
stated that he would not bring in a ver
dict of guilty on circumstantial evidence.
He was challenged by the State and ex
cused. . ■ .
E. W. Wright, a stationer and bookseller
at 118 Taylor street, stated that he had no
conscientious scruples against the inflic
tion of the death penalty and was prepared
to give it all the weight to which it was
entitled.
"Would you join in a verdict of guilty
where the death of the defendant would
follow upon evidence that was circumstan
tial in its nature?" „-
"Yes, sir; if it were very strong and con
tinuous."
Mr. Wright testified that he had read of
the case in the papers, but only ;in a
chance way. He could not say that he
had read what purported to be a verbatim
report of the testimony at the Coroner's
inquest or the preliminary examination.
He had talked of and discussed the case on
several occasions. .
"From what you have read," asked Mr.
Barnes, "and from the conversations that
you have had, have you formed or ex
pressed an opinion in this case?" 7 7
"No, sir; I have not."
"Have you an opinion now?"
Mr. Wright stated that he was unac
quainted with Durrant or his family, and
knew none of the members of Emmanuel
Baptist Church. He stated that he knew
of no reason why he could not sit as a fair
and impartial juror in the case. He was
passed by the prosecution and taken in
and by Mr. Deuprey for the defense. Af
ter a few preliminary questions, to which
Mr. Wright answered that he had no ac
quaintance with any person connected with
the District Attorney's oflice. he was asked:
"Have you any relations of any kind or
nature with the police force of this City?"
"I am proud to say," he answered, "that
I have not.
"Do you consider that circumstantial
evidence should be taken with a great deal
of caution?"
"My idea is," he replied, "that it is a case
where you have got to think twice before
you speak once. I would have to be satis
fied beyond a reasonable doubt that all
THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1895.
these circumstances pointed to the one
charged, and to no one else."
"And that," continued Mr. Deuprey, "if
there was any reasonable hypothesis upon
which you could assume from the evidence
that there was any one else who had any
thing to do.with the matter, or who could
be properly charged, you would consider
the proof had failed as to the one charged
and acquit him?"
"Yes, sir.".
"What is your idea in regard to the evi
dence in relation to identification? Would
you require that it be of the most positive
nature -to satisfy your mind, recognizing
the liability of most serious mistakes in
that regard?"
"Yes, sir."
The venireman stated that he had
formed no opinion on the case and would
be bound solely by the evidence and
I guided by the instructions of the court.
In reply to further questions Mr. Wright
stated that he was a member of the jury
which had convicted Mrs. Jane Shattuck
for the murder of young Harry Poole.
He was passed and C. A. Mascnio, a wood
and coal dealer at 1208 Church street, was
called. He stated that he would not find
a verdict of guilty in a case where the
death penalty would follow on circum
stantial evidence. He was challenged by
the State for cause and excused.
L. A. Rea, dealer in paints and oils at
1318 Stockton street, stated that he had no
I conscientious scruples against the inflic
j tion of the death penalty, but he certainly
could not join in a verdict in a capital case
where the evidence was purely circum-
I stantial. He was challenged by the State
! and excused.
D. Haskell, bookkeeper for George W.
THE PRESENT CONDITION OP THE JURY-BOX IN THE DURRANT CASE.
[Sketched by a "Call" artist.]
McNear, residing at 1607 Baker street, was
next examined. He stated that he had no
conscientious scruples against the inflic
tion of the death penalty and considered
circumstantial evidence better than direct
evidence, if strong. In answer to further
questions he testified that he was unac
quainted with Durrant or any of his fam
ily, or with the pastor or any of the mem
bers of Emmanuel Baptist Church. He
had read of the case in the newspapers
and had discussed it, but had formed no
opinion and presumed he could make a
fair and impartial juror. He admitted
that an impression had been made on his
mind by reading the story of the case in
the newspapers.
"Do you think," asked Mr. Barnes,
"that, notwithstanding any impressions
you have in this case, you could go into
the jury-box and be sworn and accepted,
and set* that aside and try the case solely
and only upon the law and the evidence
produced here?"
"I think so."
"Are you sure that you could ?"
"I have no doubt that I could."
Mr. Haskell was pressed closely by Mr.
Deuprey upon cross-examination, but held
stoutly to the belief that he could try the
case fairly and impartially. Further on,
in answer to questions, he said that he
recognized the fact that circumstances
might sometimes he, as well as witnesses,
and that people were very liable to make
serious mistakes in the matter of identifi
cation. He was asked concerning his ac
quaintance with the District Attorney or
attaches of his office, or with the Police
Department, but answering negatively he
was passed.
The ten men called to the box had all
been examined and disposed of but Messrs.
Brown, Wright and Haskell, and the court
asked counsel if they wished to exercise
their right of peremptory challenge. Mr.
Barnes asked a few moments for consulta
tion and immediately entered into a con
versation with his assistant, Mr. Peixotto,
and Captain Lees. After the lapse of
about two minutes the District Attorney
announced that the State was satisfied.
"Defendant's peremptory challenge,"
said Judge Murphy.
"We excuse Mr. Wright," said Mr. Deu
prey, and the stationer who had figured on
the Shattuck jury took his leave of the
box.
The State refused again to exercise the
peremptory .challenge,, and Mr. Deuprey
then excused Mr. Haskell, leaving Wal
ter S. Brown to be disposed : of. Both
sides announced their satisfaction with
Mr. Brown, and, under instructions from
Judge Murphy, he was sworn in, the fifth
juror secured to try Theodore Durrant.
" Seven more names were drawn from the
little tin box, and their owners sworn as
follows: William '-.'■ Watkins, J. A. Saltz,
Isidore Ackerman, C. P. Nathan, A. Stet
son, W. F. Menne and George W. Sweetser.
Mr. Watkins, who keeps a grocery. at
1912 Green street, stated that he had -con
scientious scruples • as -to the infliction of
the death penalty on circumstantial evi
dence. He was challenged by the prosecu
tion and excused. 7:7 ; 7/
J. A. Saltz, who resides at 2734 Pine
street, was also challenged and excused on
the same ground.
Isidore S. Ackerman, manager of the
Anglo-American Crockery and Glassware
Company, residing at 2419 Washington
street, was next examined. He stated that
he had no conscientious scruples against
the infliction of the death penalty and was
prepared to consider and weigh circum
stantial evidence at its proper value.
"Do I understand you to say," asked Mr.
Peixotto, who was conducting the ex
amination for the prosecution, "that if you
could be satisfied in your own mind by
circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the
party accused of premeditated and de
liberate murder you could find him guilty,
though the penalty of death would follow ?"
"Yes, sir." .
"Mr. Ackerman was then questioned as
to his knowledge of the defendant, his at
torneys, detectives and acquaintances and
replied that he knew none of them. ;He
was passed by the prosecution.
In answer to a question by Mr. Deuprey
he stated that he had read much concern
ing the case in the newspapers. ■" He had
heard it discussed, but from these dis
cussions had formed no opinion.
''Then, as I understand it," - said Mr.
Deuprey, "at the present time you are en
tirely free from any impression or opinion
as to the guilt or innocence of the de
fendant?"
"Yes, sir.". -.? :_Vy
Mr. Ackerman then answered that he
had not been acquainted with Blanche
Lamont and knew neither Elmer nor
Clarence Wolf, J. George Gibson, his secre
tary, Mr. Lynch, and that he was not a
member of Emmanuel Baptist Church,
ln relation to circumstantial evidence and
the matter of identification he stated that
mistakes were likely to occur and all testi
mony in the latter regard must be taken
with great caution.
"Do you know of any reason asked
Mr. Deuprey, "why you could not fairly
and impartially try this charge as between
the State and the defendant?" •"-.-.
"No, sir." .■
"Would you be guided solely by the cvi
dence that you might - hear • from the wit
nesses here in court and by the instruc
tions of the court and * follow the law as
given by the court and the facts and cir
cumstances?" : : 7"7 *"
"I would." *■
Mr. Ackerman was passed by the de
fense, and it began to- look very much as
though he would be accepted as a juror.
Charles ■ P. Nathan, a merchant residing
at 1617 Van Ness avenue, was the next
venireman examined. He developed no
conscientious scruples against the inflic
tion of the death penalty and was not
prejudiced against circumstantial evidence
as a class of evidence. He had no acquaint
ance with the defendant or any of the
other persons connected with the defense,
He was passed by the prosecution.
To Mr. Deuprey he ; stated that he was
acquainted with no members of the police
or detective departments, and knew no
one in the District Attorney's office. ; 7-7
"Have you read the purported evidence
as given before the Coroner's jury and the
committing; magistrate?"
"I must have read part of it."
"What you did read did you take to be
true?"
"What I read in the newspapers, I do
not take to be true always. I take it with
many grains of allowance."
"You have no bias against circumstan
tial evidence?" ;_•_.,:■:
"I have not."
"Do you believe that it is that character
of evidence that should be accepted with
the utmost caution?"
"Yes. sir."
"And that the evidence in relation to
identification is of like character?"
"Yes, sir."
Mr. Nathan stated again that he had
read but very little concerning the case, as
he had beeen in the mountains for the past
five weeks. He had, however, formed an
opinion on the case and had it still.
"It would require evidence to remove
that opinion, would it, Mr. Nathan?"
asked Mr. Deuprey.
"Yes, sir."
"And strong evidence at that?"
"Yes, sir; strong evidence at that."
"We challenge the juror," said Mr. Deu
prey, ''particularly on the ground that he
has formed and expressed an opinion on
the matter."
The prosecution denied the challenge
and Mr. Barnes proceeded to question Mr.
Nathan further.
"Did I understand you to say," he asked,
"that the opinion that you had formed
was based upon what you had read in the
newspapers?" -. - .■■'-•<■-__'■
"And upon that alone," was the reply.
"And that yon do not recollect having
read the testimony given at the Coroner's
inquest or at the preliminary examination
in the Police Court?"
"Yes, sir." ■'*■$':
"Now, can you and will you, notwith
standing such opinion or impression, act
fairly and impartially on the evidence to
be submitted to you in this case, if you are
sworn as a juror?" .777'
"Yes, sir/
"You can and will?"
"Yes, sir; I will."
"You say that you would," said Mr.
Deuprey, "but can you?"
"I can, sir."
"Do I understand you to say, as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendant, and
the opinion you now hold, that you could
cast it aside."
"I could, sir."
"Suppose you stood here charged with
this crime, would you line to be tried by
twelve jurors holding the same opinion as
you hold now?" -777- ;
"I would, sir, trust myself in their
hands." .
In answer to questions propounded by
Judge Murphy the juror stated that what
he had read in the papers of the testimony
given at the Coroner's inquest or before the
committing magistrate had nothing to do
with the opinion he now held. ■*
5 "As I understand you," continued his
Honor, "you formed your opinion from
reading the newspaper accounts almost
immediately after the discovery of the
bodies, and you have not folio wed" the mat
ter up since and not discussed it since?"
"I have been out of the City."
' "Now, I understand you to say that you
can and will, in the event of your being
sworn as a juror, lay aside any and all
effect that the opinion may have upon
you?" ... ■ . ■ *
"Yes sir." .7
"And decide the - case solely upon the
evidence you will hear in this matter?"
7 "Just as if I had never read anything at
all." '■.. 77* :'i..:.j^vx, >_;;■■
"And you have perfect . confidence in
your ability to do so?"
"Yes, sir; I have."
"The challenge is disallowed," said his
Honor, and the defense noted an excep
tion. ' / 7,;- , ; -7. . ". .. ... , : .-.. ;
A recess was taken till 2 o'clock, at
which time the examinations were re
newed. A. Stetson, secretary of the Cali
fornia-street Cable Railway Company,
being the next venireman called. He
stated that he would be unwilling to stand
for a verdict on circumstantial evidence.
He was challenged for cause by the State
and the challenge was allowed.
W. F. Menne, proprietor of the Park
Hotel, 26 Turk street, answered , the ques
tions of the prosecution satisfactorily and
was passed by Mr. Barnes. Upon exam
ination by Mr. Deuprey it developed that
he had an opinion in the matter, which: it
would take the strongest kind of evidence
to remove. He was challenged by the de
fense and the challenge was allowed.
George W. Sweetserof 127 Ivy avenue
was excused for the ; same reason. ; This
exhausted the list of veniremen in the box,
and the State announced that it did not
care to interpose a peremptory challenge.
"We excuse Mr. Ackerman.",; said Mr.
Deuprey for the defense, . 'and we renew
our challenge for cause as to Mr. Nathan."
"That has been passed upon once," said
Judge Murphy. "Have you a peremptory
challenge to interpose as to him?"
, ; "No, sir; we do nothing more than ; read
our challenge for cause and let the excep
tion be taken."
Mr. Nathan was , then sworn to try the
case, making six jurors, being half of the
number necessary to try the case. 7
The court then ordered six other names
drawn from the box.7 Clerk Morris called
nine, but received responses I for only four.
The court then ordered attachments issued
for the derelicts, returnable Monday morn
ings at 10 : o'clock. He then ordered the
clerk of the court to appear with the trial
jury box, to draw therefrom 300 names of
citizens to serve as jurors on the case,' 100
returnable Monday morning, 50 on Tues
day morning. 100 Wednesday morning and
50 Thursday morning. 77 . ; ■
; ..The jurors sworn and the venire
men in the box awaiting examination were
cautioned * by the court as to their conduct
and the case ; was continued till Monday
morning at 10 o'clock, until which time :
they were excused. Three hundred names
were then f drawn , from the trial-jury box
by Deputy, County Clerk PiDer. and placed
in the hands of the Sheriff for service. . ,
7 Court then adjourned till this morning
at 10 o'clock.
MR. CLARK MISTAKEN.
Hls Wife Says He Has Written to
That Effect.
Earl H. Webb, an attorney in the Mills
building, has made a statement to Captain
Lees, , chief of detectives, which is inter
esting, if not conclusive, in regard to
Charles H. Clark, the absent new witness
for Durrant. According to a statement
furnished by Captain Lees, Mr. Webb ex
plains that Mrs. Clark* and brother, Mr.
Cousins, came to his office and asked him
what was best to be done to have the pub
lication of newspaper items concerning
her husband stopped. 7. . X:r» -i
"I asked her," said ' Mr. Webb, "what
her husband knew that was material to
the Durrant case. She said that the only
point of which she knew was that it
seemed that Mr. Clark * imagined that
about April 3, or within a few days of that
date, he was ridine on a Powell-street car
one afternoon and saw a young man and a
young woman sitting together, . and that,
when the time came to transfer to
the Valencia-street car, the young man
left her, raising his hat and saving 'Good
day, Miss Lamont' ; that Mr! Clark be
lieved Durrant was innocent and immedi-
ately went to Mr. Deuprey's office and told
him what he knew of that circumstance.
"In the meantime," continued Mr. Webb,
"as Mrs. Clark -stated it, Mr. Clark's
mother, Mrs. Mylrea, died, leaving some
money to him, and he went East in his
own business interests. . : -^\. 7_
"After this statement by Mrs. Clark we
sent a telegram to her husband, asking
him to send me a concise statement of the
affair, and that, if he had any material tes
timony, to send it to me. Mrs. Clark also
wrote to her husband in regard to the
newspaper articles, and she told him that
he had made a mistake in the time. She
can account for every moment of his time
on the 3d of April. To-day she received a
letter from Mr. Clark, part of which she
read to me. It read :
But why do you worry? Now, do not do so
any longer. I nave written to Mr. Deuprey
and told him that it was on some other day
than the 3d of April, and I am sure he will not
want me under those circumstances.
"In explaining tome the reason why Mr.
Clark must have been mistaken, Mrs.
Clark continued:
Mrs. Mylrea, Mr. Clark's mother, was suffer
ing from cancer, and she went to a boarding
house, corner of Hyde and Eddy streets, the
last day of March, a Sunday.; We spent the
whole of Monday and Tuesday with her. On
Wednesday morning Mr. Clark and I left our
house after breakfast and went to Mr. Clark's
mother's. I remained there with my husband
until after lunch, and then his Bister and I
went shopping. He staid and attended to his
sick mother and, to the best of my knowledge,
he was with her the whole afternoon, and then
Mr. Clark and I went home. This was on
Wednesday, April 3. I have written Mr. Clark
telling him of his mistake. I think he has made
a mistake of one week.
Eugene Deuprey of counsel for Durrant
stated last night that he had received no
such letter as the one mentioned in the
missive, which Mr. Webb says Mrs. Clark
states she has received from her husband.
"I do not believe he has sent any such
letter," said Mr. Deuprey.
MUSIC IN A LIBRARY.
A Successful Concert at the Mercantile
Library Last Night.
The monthly entertainment at the Mer
cantile Library took the form of amusicale
last evening. The musicians, Mme. Emilia
Tojetti, soprano, J. Joseph, violinist, L.
yon der Mehden, celJoist.R. A. Lucchesi,
pianist, generously donated their services,,
and the following choice programme was
rendered : 7:7: 7--I-77-"' :■ -7;^ . -c)M-^" .:-':■
(a) "Ecstasy" (Ganne), (6) "Hungarian Sere
nade" (Daube), J. Joseph, L. yon der Mehden
and R. A. Lucchesi; (a) "Chanson dv XIII
Siecle" * (Joyense), Cantilene, "Cinq Mars"
(Gounod), Chopin Mazurka F minor (Viardot);
(ft) "Per Nussbaum" (Schumann), "The Mono
tone" (Cornelius), "Irma" (Klein), Mme. Emi
lia Tojetti; "Allegro con brio and Adagio,"
from Trio op. 11 (Beethoven), J. Joseph, L. yon
der Mehden and R. A. Lucchesi. (a) "Caro
mio ben" (Gdordani), "Se tv in ami' (Pergo
lesl), "Maggio" (Bucceri); (6) "Ich hab' im
Traume" (Franz), "Erl Koni (Schubert),
"Schmerzen" (Wagner), Mme. Emilia Tojetti.
MRS. TOWNE'S ALLOWANCE.
The Widow of the. Railroad Man to Re
ceive 91000 a Month From
the Estate. *
A family allowance of $1000 per month
has been granted to Mrs. Caroline Amelia
Mansfield Towne from the -. estate of the
late AlbanN. Towne. - Mrs. Towne is
executrix of her husband's estate and she
is directed to pay the money to herself
each month.
The appraisers: of the estate appointed
yesterday- by Judge Slack are isaac L.
kequa, Walter .S. Newhall and Arthur
Smith. '. . : 7777\7'-7.
THE ORDINANCE HOLDS.
A Supreme Court, Decision on a Los
Angeles City Regulation.
.In the case of James Lacey, a Los
Angeles carpet-cleaner, who was punished
for maintaining his establishment within
prescribed limits, the lower I court is sus
tained by the Supreme Court.
. Justice Garoutte r handed down an
opinion yesterday declaring that the City
ordinance against what was held to be a
nuisance is clearly constitutional. • ;
Steamers for "A Night In Venice."
To afford * the public an opportunity to
view "A Night in Venice" at Belvedere
Saturday night, August 3, the : ; San Fran
cisco and North Pacific Railway, Company
will run their three-large steamers, leaving
Tiburon Ferry, foot of Market street, at
8:00, 8:15 and 8:30 p. m.; on the return they
will leave Tiburon at the close of the spec
tacle, about 11 : 00 p. m. Round trip, 25cents*
A Family Jar.
GREAT AMERICAN •'. IMPORTING TEA CO.'S
. Stores are selling .. %i'
: MASON ': FRUIT . JARS <
,' 7 -/ At greatly reduced prices. '■'..
1 dozen "are, pints, In box ........;...........;..;60c
1 dozen jars, quarts, in box. ...•.........;... ..."..60c
1 dozen jars, half gallons, Inbox .;.;".......,,.... 80c
Inspect our Improved Jelly (.lasses, 85c per do_.
THE STREET COMMITTEE
Jordan's Protest Against Dis
crimination Not Under
stood.
THEY WANT HIM TO EXPLAIN.
Mayor. Sutro's Call for the Repeal
of the " Rattler" Test Is "
Ignored.
The Street Committee of the Board of
Supervisors yesterday disposed of a quan
tity of important business. It was the last
meeting of the committee before adjourn
ment, and when it adjourned last evening
it was for a long jump— September 19.
*It was expected that there would be a
discussion upon the protest of James C.
Jordan, president of the Jordan Bitumin
ous RocK and Paving Company, : "against
the discrimination shown in depriving
him of a chance to compete for the work
proposed to be paid for by public funds."
Mr. Jordan filed his protest some days
ago with the clerk of the board, and it
was presented at Monday's meeting. It
was this communication that Supervisor
Dimond asked to have read in the open
meeting and which reading Supervisor
Hughes, by his objection, headed off, for
in such a matter there must be unani
mous consent. It was then referred to the
Street Committee.
J. W. McDonald and others of the air
tight combine were present yesterday
morning to have a hand in any fight that
might develop, probably, but as the parties
protesting had nothing to add to the writ
ten protest they retired. The protest is as
follows: '' .. </7- .■£...*;<-?
To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of the
City and County of San Francisco : As road build
ing is no longer in an experimental stage, and
as any one who has studied the subject knows
that a good foundation is the first essential to
ward producing a durable and satisfactory
superstructure, I desire to call the attention of
your honorable board to the fact that the pres
ent macadam foundation on Van Ness avenue
is not a suitable foundation for a bituminous
rock pavement.
An estimate has already been submitted to
you showing that it will cost .021 cents per
square foot to keep such a pavement in repair
for the first seven years. The next seven years
will require at least double that amount. . The
repairs for fourteen years, the life of an average
bituminous pavement, will amount to about
.06 cents per square foot, and at the end of that
period there will be nothing to show for the
money expended and during the above named
Seriod the pavement can never be in good con
ition owing to the nature of the foundation.
If a substantial concrete foundation is laid
under the bitumen it will have cost no more at
the end of fourteen years, and, besides having
had a siuooth pavement during that time, you
have an everlasting foundation for future
coverings.
As a citizen and taxpayer I protest against
using public funds for a make-shift pavement.
I also protest against the unlawful appro
priation of 85 cents per lineal foot for laying
granite curbs on Steiner street, between Fulton
and Grove, and 22 cents per square foot for a
basalt-block pavement on the same street,
when the contractor to whom this work is
given (without competition) is bidding 65
cents for curbs and 17 cents for basalt pave
ments when competing for the work in public
contracts, and I desire to call the attention of
your 'honorable board for comparison to the
public contract for paving the adjoining block
on Steiner street, from Fulton to McAllister,
with bituminous rock for 18% cents per square
foot.
The same contractor is given 80 cents for
curbs and 22 cents for bitumen pavement on
Steiner street, between Washington and Jack
son, when the adjoining block, Jackson street
from Steiner to Pierce, was let at public con
tract for 68 cents for curbs and 19 cents
for paving.
The same contractor is given the contract to
pave Clay street from Steiner to Pierce and he
is allowed 85 cents for curbs and 23 cents for
paving, notwithstanding that this block can be
prepared for the pavement at a less cost than
the above-named block on Jackson street,
directly opposite. : ".j
The same contractor, is given 21 cents per
square foot for paving on Vallejo street, be
tween Octavia and Laguna, and 27% cents for
paving on the crossing of Vallejo and Laguna
streets.
The crossing of Broadway and Octavia street,
one block distant, was let to the San Francisco
Paving Company at public contract for 19%
cents.
You have directed the Superintendent of
Streets to enter into a contract with the San
Francisco Paving Company to curb and pave
Fell street, from Baker to Stanyan, eight
blocks, for 85 cents for curbs and 23*^ cents
for bitumen 1 pavement. The public contract
price for work in the same neighborhood has
been as follows: Haight street, from Lyon to
Lott, 75 cents for curb and 20 cents for paving;
D street, fiom Fourth to Eighth avenues, 68
cents for curb and 18"-^ cents for paving.
The City's portion of the work above enumer
ated will cost over $9000 more if done under
the private contracts you have authorized the
Superintendent of Streets to sign than it would
cost to do the work if let by public contract, as
the street law directs that all City work shall
be let. -
I formally protest against the discrimination
shown in depriving me of a chance to compete
for the work proposed to be paid for by public
funds. James C. Jordan, *
For the Jordan Bituminous Rock and Paving
Company.
San Francisco, July 29, 1895.
The paper was filed with an invitation
inscribed upon its cover, inviting Mr. Jor
dan to appear before the committee at its
meeting of September 19 and "explain
what he means by discrimination."
Now, ordinarily the Street Committee
is a very stolid, staid and busy body of
men. This is its first known attempt at
joking, but this effort rose up like a levia
than, mature, full blown upon the instant,
to stand out forever in the history of all
City Hall jests; broke away and went bel
lowing up and down the echoing corridors
all the afternoon ; indeed, to-day, this
morning, no doubt, one can still hear the
hollow [ reverberations of that abounding
guffaw as the high and dark recesses of the
great pile still tremble with its astonished
merriment. '»._.-■'.
Oh! that was a rare jest; "explain what
he means by discrimination"; oh, hush,
hush ! that is too much.
Then Mayor. Sutro's communication,
Eointing | out the evils of the rattler test,
ow it creates a distinct , monopoly and
how it works harm to the streets by stand
ing in the way where citizens desire to put
down a macadam road, for which the hard
blue rock is not at all adapted, was taken
up for action. It asked for the repeal of
this clause in the ; street-building speci
fications, i *
"I don't see why we should repeal this
clause," said Supervisor Hughes, who pre
sided in the absence of Chairman Spreck
els. "That clause; was framed originally
by the last board out of its experience. I
don't think we ought to repeal it."
And they didn't repeal it, of course.
Mr. Hughes' remarks were "enough said,"
so to speak. -
The others, Morgenstern, Dunker and
Benjamin, simply smiled and nodded, and
the clerk accordingly wrote upon the back
the word "against,'' and threw it on the
pile.'; ■. \. ■ ■■ ' ..-, ••
Was it a case of Strang, coincidence that
brought : a battalion of property-owners
into the room the very next moment, all
of them pleading, as a "great favor, saying
that it would be a great favor to them if
the honorable committee would be so kind
as to allow: them to use ; the rock to be
found |in the vicinity of Corbett road for
the improvement of the streets there?
I All these terms of pleading were used by
the delation. Samuel Wyatt said that
the residents : of that vicinity were chiefly
workingmen who could not afford to buy
the blue ; rock at its extra high price and
have it- hauled out there. An excellent
quality -of ; red ; rock was to be had from
quarries near at hand. ; , „
. Mr. Denver said he had lived out there
for twenty-one years. It was once one of
the finest drives about the City. It had
been laid with this red rock, and the road
way, was one of the best; until torn up.
Where it remains in its original state tne
red rock of which it is built speaks tor
itself. It packs together like cement, me
blue rock, he said, is a complete failure lor
this purpose, for one wagon driven 'over it
, tears it out of shape. "It is too bad, he ,
% ...... - - * .
said, "that our people have to be taxed to
bring this blue rock clear across the City.
He asked the Supervisors not to put them
to this expense. ' ,/ _
James A. 1 Downey testified on behalf cf
the red rock. It was very superior for th.
purpose, he said. The residents out there
are poor, he said ; some of them are wid
ows and cannot afford to - pay the high
price of the monopoly protected blue rock
and the general cost of hauling, and hoped
they would not be required to do so. Of
course Mr. Downey did not refer to the
blue rock as "monopoly protected." That
would not have been diplomatic— the
word is used by The Call just to keep the
reader in mind of what it is and who that
is oppressing these poor widows. *
.Donald Bruce ■ could not be expected to
lose the opportunity to be heard and he
didn't. He spoke of the "'worthy Super
intendent of Streets" as being "in doubt
about the merits of red rock" and assured
him that the red rock had much merit.
But Mr. Bruce is wrong about the Super
intendent of Streets. He has never been
in doubt about the merits of red rock for
macadam purposes. He confessed to The
Call months ago that blue rock was not
good for .that purpose and that red rock
was. '* 7'". -~'
The committee took this matter "under
advisement."
The protest of Behrend Joost against
having Corbett avenue between Clara
avenue and Douglas street graded, sew
ered • and macadamized was reported
against.
The petition of the Spring Valley Water
Works for the right to lease a portion of
Holly Park on which to erect a reservoir
for the better service of that region was
granted. ,
Mrs. Ersilia Cazneau, whose house on
Dupont street, Telegraph Hill, was partly
blown out of shape by the blastings of
Contractor O'Connell, was before the board
and made complaint. She was instructed
that she had a good • case against the con
tractor, as he had no permit for his blast
ing. .-.'.■
Alexander George, the young man who
has a penchant for the Fire Department,
and is a recognized expert on the streets
and numbers and lire boxes of the City,
was heard on his petition, in which he asks
authority to prepare a new order for num
bering houses "that shall obviate the de
fects of the order now in force, and if the
same be approved that he be empowered to
undertake the necessary renumbering in
accordance therewith." .
He presented amendments to the order
calculated to reduce the numbering to a
system without disturbing the present or
der more than is necessary. It leaves Mar
ket * street ' alone. The amendments pro
posed and which were approved by the
committee are as follows:
Sec. 4. Market street . shall be the starting
point for the numbers on all buildings fronting
on the streets, beginning thereat and running
therefrom in any direction. On WebsterrsFill
more, Steiner, Pierce, Scott, Devisadero, Brod
erick, Baker and Lyon streets the numbering
shall begin at their southerly en and proceed
toward the north. On all other streets having
a northerly course, or diverging less than 45
degrees from a northerly course, the number
ing shall begin at their northerly end, and pro
ceed toward the south. On all streets having
an easterly and westerly course, or diverging
less than 45 degrees from an easterly and
westerly course, the numbering shall begin at
their easterly end, and proceed toward the
west. *On all intermediate or subdivision
streets the numbering shall commence where
the streets begin, and proceed in the same
direction as the numbering on the principal
streets between which they lie.
Sec. 5 (even and odd numbers). On all streets
the numbers on the right-hand side, starting
from the point ot beginning, shall be even
numbers, and on the left-hand side shall be
odd numbers.
Sec. 6 (allotment to each block and frontage
for each number). One hundred numbers, or as
many thereof as may be necessary, shall be
allotted to each block bounded by the principal
streets, numbers 100, 200 and 300 being re
spectively the numbers for commencing the
block distant one, two or three streets from
the starting point on the right-hand side, and
numbers 101, 201 and 301 in similar manner
for the opposite side of the street. Provided,
that on Market, Mission, Howard, Folsom,
Bryant, Jackson, Pacific, Broadway, Vallejo,
Green, Union, Francisco, Bay and Webster
streets 100 numbers shall be allotted to the
first two blocks.
When any street, except Market street, Is in
tersected by different streets on opposite sides,
the hundreds on one side shall be to corre
spond as nearly as may be to the hundreds on
the other side by allotting only twenty-five
even or odd numbers, as the case may be, to
each block on the side on which the block is
shorter. Not less than twenty-five feet ln
frontage on any street, shall be allowed for each
number; provided, that upon petition of a
majority of the property-owners on either sida
of any block, one number may be allotted to
each one-fiftieth of the frontage on that side of
the block.. 777
Mr. George ha-* another order for renam
ing certain streets, which the committee
will hear him upon after the recess.
Protests were "received that will stop the
following proposed work for six months:
Paving of Larkin street, from Greenwich to
Lombard; also from Lombard to Chestnut;
also from Union to Filbert; also from Fil
bert to Greenwich.
A. protest against lowering the grade of
Fifth avenue, from M to L street, South,
was denied.
The committee favored fixing the grade
of Hinckley street according to the pres
ent contour. .*7 77 77777 7;
"Lecture on "Ben Hur.".
The Hon. J. W. Fair bank will deliver a lec
ture to-night in Plymouth Church, Post street,
near Webster, on "Ben Hur." His discourse.
will be illustrated with 100 views.
I ; Millions Wear
GOODYEAR
ll* WELT . 7
It SHOES. I
Do
You? j
JL A/i* ■•-
]• ■ |y Goodyear Welts are
: LEATHER SHOES— not-
rubber. ;
, *mma»mmm+a* mJ^ »» •****«>* * » *
'
v" KINETIC STABILITY."
A REMARKABLE-SERIES r
OF ARTICLES, " =
By ROBERT STEVENSON,
Scientist.
This author questions the New-
tonian Theory in regard to
the attraction of gravitation.
Whether you agree with
him or not you will be in-
; terested in what he says,
as he writes in a proper
style. Read it in next
Sunday's Call,
st. mary's college,
San Francisco, Cal.— Mission Road.
Studies \ resumed MONDAY, august 6,
1895. Tor particulars apply to - r
[ 880. WALTER, Director.