The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, August 2, 1895, Page 14

14 : THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1895 WITHESS 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. Dempste Nathan Crocker. Walter 8. Brown. Charles P. Nathan. The two last-named were secured yester- day after the examination of a number of venire 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. an stated that he could set the opinion aside and try the case f and impartially. His Honor therenpon 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 end 50 Thursda! It is thought that before this number is ex hausted the jury will have been secured. Captain L has & statement from Earl H. Mills, an attor 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 8. Mrs. Clark gives very strong reasons, and bac 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 mi taken as to the date upon which he saw Mis Lamont. There will be hundreds of columns of testimony in the Durrant trial that not even the vilest and most sensational of tbe “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 editorsin 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 ahd 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 noclean mind may be sullied in perusing a comprehensive report of the case. This will not detract from the news value ol the account published, but will rather increase the worth of THE Carv's report to the iptelligentand careful reader. The search for jurors in the Durrantcase 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 Marphy 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 ne was glad 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 langnage. 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. Lohmann, 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. A L. 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 tKe 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 the slightest disposition on the part of !ge people to do their duty, and I am tired of it.”’ The court then ordered seven of the new panel, together with Robert Hochstadter, | 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. i District Attorney Barnes repeated his opening statement of the case and Robert lf. Hockstadter of 1012 Van Ness avenue was asked concerning his gualifications 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. “T 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 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 2 “Yes, sir.” “What is your idea in regara 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 sclely by the evidence and | guided by the instructions of the court. In reply to further questions Mr. Wright stated that he was a member of the jur; which had convicted Mrs. Jane Shattuc! for the murder of young Harry Poole. He was passed and C. A. Maschio, a wood and coal dealer at 1208 Church street, was cailed. 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 bad no conscientious scruples against the inflic- | tion of the death penalty, but he certainly could not join in a verdict in a capital case where the evidence was purely circum- stantial. He was challenged by the State | and excused. D. Haskell, bookkeeper for George W. 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 fagts and cir- cumstances 2" “I would.” Mr. Ackerman was passed by the de- fense, and it began to Fook 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 vrejudiced againstcircumstantial 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 mno one in the District Attorney’s office. *‘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. Itake it with many grains of aliowance.” “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, gir.” “And that the evidence in relation to identification is of like character?” *Yes, sir.” morning at 10 o’clock, until which time they were excused. Three hundred names were then drawn from the trial-jury box by Deputy County Clerk Piver and placed in the hands of the Sheriff for service. . Court then adjourned till this morning at 10 o’clock. MR. —_—— CLARK MISTAKEN. His Wife Says He Has Wrltten 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. “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 ridinz 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 Lament’; that Mr. Clark be- lieved Durrant was innocent and immedi- [Sketched by a “Call” artist.] THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE JURY-BOX IN THE DURRANT OASE, 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 27 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 Dis- 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 whe 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.” 3 “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. would convict on cir- cumstantial evidence if it were strong enough.” bis “You recognize, however, in receiving circumstantial evidence that it 1s to taken with a great deal of caution, and that the same rule applies to evidence in regard to identification—that 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?” % think so,” replied Mr. Brown. “Do you know of any reason at this time, Mr. Brown, why vou 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 1 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?” “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 Enssed 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’soffice, 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 ideais,” hereplied, “thatit is a case where you have got to think twice before ou speak once. I would have to be satis- ed beyond a reasonable doubt that all Highest of all in Leavening Power.— Latest U. S. Gov't Report Roval Bakine Powder ABSOLUTELY PURE { 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 festified that he was unac- uainted 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 vou 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?” | “Ithink so.” ‘““Are you sure that you could ?”" ‘I have no doubt tkat 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 lie, 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 %t;e Shattuck jury took his leave of the X, The State refused again to exercise the peremptory challenge, and Mr. Deuprey then excused Mr. Haskell, leaving Wal- ter 8. Brown to be disposed of. Both sides announced their satisfaction with Mr. Brown, aad, 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. 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 conducfing the ex- amination for the prosecution, “‘that if you could be satisfied in your own mind by circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the arty accused of premeditated and de- iberate murder you could find him guilt; though the penalty of death would follow 17 “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 beard 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.”” 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. 1In reiation 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 ion could not fairly and impartially try this charge as between the State and the defendant?’* “No, sir.” “Would you be guided solely by the evi- Mr. Nathan stated again that he had | read but very little concerning the case, as | ke 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 Igir. Deuprey. $"Yes, Bir."” “And strong evidence at that?” ““Yes, sir; strong evidence at tbat.” “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 farther. *Did I understand you to say,” he asked, “that the opinion that yon had formed was based upon what you had read in the newspapers?’ “And upon that alone,’” was the reply. “And that you 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 1n this case, if you are sworn as a juror?” “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 sayv, 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 like to be tried by twelve Iim-ors holding the same opinion as you hold now?” “I would, sir, trust myself in their hands.” In answer to questions pl;?ouuded by Judge Murphy the juror stat that what he had read in the papers of the testimony given at the Coroner’sinquest or before the committing magistrate had nothing to do with the opinion he now held. “As T understand you,”’ continued his Honor, ““you formed your opinion from reading the newspaper aecounts almost immediately after the discovery of the bodies, and you have not followed the mat- ter up since and not discussed it since?”’ “I have been out of the City.” “Now, I understand you to say that vou can and will, 1n the event of your bein, sworn as a juror, lay aside any and afi effect that the opinion may have upon you?” “Yes, sir."” “And decide the case solely upon the evidence you will hear in this matter?” ““.,I’ust as if I had never read anything at all. “And you have perfect confidence in your ability to do so?”’ “Yes, sir; I have.” “The challenge is disallowed,” said his {gonor, and the defense noted an excep- ion. 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. Ife stated that he would be unwilling to stand fora verdict on circumstantial evidence. He was challenged for cause by the State and the challenge was allowed. . 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. Sweetser of 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 challenfie. “We excuse Mr. Ackerman,” said Mr. Deuprey for the defense, “'and we renew our challenge for cause as to Mr. Nathan.” ““That bas been passed upon once,” said Judge Murphy. “Have you a peremptory challenge to interpose asto 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. The court then ordered six other names drawn from the box. Clerk Morris called nine, but received responses for only four. The court then ordered attachments issued for the derelicts, returnable Monday morn- ing 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- dli.moming. 100 Wednesday morning and 50 Thursday morning. The jurors sworn and the four venire- men in the box awaiting examination were cautioned by the court as to their conduct and the case was continued till Monday 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 Eastin his own business interests. ““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 tc 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 have written to Mr. Deuprey and told him that it was on some other day than the 3d of Agfll, and I am sure he will not want me under those circumstances. ““In explaining tome the reason why Mr. Clark must bave 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. Iremained there with my husband until after lunch, and then his sister 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 a musicale last evening. The musicians, Mme. Emilia Tojetti, soprano, J. Joseph, violinist, L. von der Mehden, celloist, R. A. Lucchesi, pianist, generously donated their services, and the following choice programme was rendered: (a) *“Ecstasy” J(Gmme, (b) “Hungarian Sere- nade” (Daube), J. Joseph, L. von der Mehden and R. A. Lucchesi; (a) “*‘Chanson du_ XIII Siecle” (Joyense), Cantileme, “Cing Mars” Gounod), Chopin Mazurka F minor (Viardot); b) *Der Nussbaum” (Schumann), “The Mono- e orneiius), “Irma” (Klein), Mme. Emi- lin Tojetti; “Allegro con brio and Adagio,” from Trio op. 11 (Beethoven), J. Joseph, L. von der Mehden and R. A. Lucchesi. (a) “Caro mio ben” (Giordani), “Se tu in ami’’ (Pergo- lesi), *“Maggio” (Bucceri); (b) “Ich hab’ im Traume” (Franz), “Erl Konig” (Schubert), “Schmerzen” (Wagner), Mme. Emilia Tojetti. R — MRS. TOWNE’S ALLOWANCE. The Widow of the Railroad Man to Re- ceive $1000 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 Jate Alban N. 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 vesterday by Judge Slack are isaac L. Requ:, Walter S. Newhall and Arthur Smith. 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 court is sus- tained by the Supreme Court. Justice Garoutte handed down an opinion yesterday declaring that the City ordinance ag]ninsc 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 _ortlx 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 ». ». Round trip, 25cents, A Family Jar. GREAT AMERICAN IMPORTING TEA CO.S Stores are selling MASON FRUIT JARS At greatly reduced prices. 1 dozen jars, pints, in box .. e 1 dozen jars, quarts, in box. 1 dozen jars, half gallons, in box. Inspect §33 vlfrhnmu:uumnu,ahmmnlum 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—to 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: 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 & good foundation is the first éssential to- ward producing & 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 & bituminous rock pavement. An estimate has already been submitted to you showing that it will cost.021 cents per square {00t 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, thelife 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 perio the pavement can never be in good con- ition owing to the nature of the foundation. If a substantial conerete foundation is laid under the bitumen it will have cost no more at the end of fourteen years, and, besides having had a swooth pavement during that time, you have an everlasting foundation for future coverings. As a citizen and mxpnyerlgroten against using public funds for a make-shift pavement. I also protest against the unlawiul 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 cenis 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, }nm: bituminous rock for 183 cents per square 00t. 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 pATg Clay stret from Steiner to Pierce and he s 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. The fame contractor is given 21 cents per square foot for paving on Vallejo street, tween Octavia and Laguna, and 273 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 193 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 2314 cents for bitumen pavement. The public contract rice for work in the same neighborhood has een as follows: Haight street, from Lyon to Lott, 75 cents for curb and 20 cents for paving; D street, fiom Fourth to Eighth avenues, 6 cents for curb and 1814 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 todo the work if let by public contract, as gnelureez law directs that all City work shall e 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 tunds. JAMES C. JOEDAN, 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, ordinnri(liy the Street Committee is a very stolid, staid and busy body of men. Thisisits 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 al 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 Treverberations of that abounding guifaw 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 communieation, Eomung out the e 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. Itasked for the repeal of this clause in the street-building ~speci- fications. “Idon’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 originall by the last board out of its experience. don’t think we ought to repeal it.”’ And they didn't repeal it, of course. Mr. Hughes’ remarks were “‘enough said,” 80 to speuk. The others, Morgenstern, Dunker and Benjamin, simply smiled and nodded, and the clerk accordingly wrote upon the back v.l;le word “against,” and threw it on the vile. Was it a case of strange 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? All these terms of pleading were used by the dele.ation. 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 theret for twenty-one years. It was once one :d the finest drives about the City. It hd been laid with this red rock, and the road- way was one of the best until torn “1?‘ Where it remains in its original state the red rock of which it is built speakarfgf atself. It packs together like ceme_x}t. : e blue rock, he said, is & complete failure for , f wagon driven over it fearslt Sut ot shape. " 1¢1s too bad,” he bring this blue rock clear across the Ci i3 He asked the Supervisors not to put them to_this expense. | James A. Downey testified on behal f the red rock. It was very superior for the purpose, he said. The residents out thel are poor, he said; some of them are wi ows and cannot afford to pay the higl price of the monopoly protected blue rock and the general cost of hauling, and hoped - said. “that our people have to be taxe%!o course Mr. Downey did not refer to the blue rock as “‘monopoly protected.”” That would not have been diplomatic—but 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 expecied 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. Bruceis 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 Cari months ago that blue rock was not good for that purposeand that red rock was. 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 whicb to erect a reservoir for the better service of that region was granted. Mrs. Ersilia Cazneau, whose house on Dupont street, Telegrngh 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 experton the streets and numbers and fire 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 toa system without disturbing the present or- der more than is necessary. Itleaves 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 Webstery-Fill- more, Steiner, Pierce, Scott, Devisadero, Brod- erick, Baker and Lyon streéts the numberin shall begin at their southerly end, and procees toward the north. On all other streets havin a northerly course, or diverging less than degrees from & northerly course, the numbere ing shall begin at their northerly end, and pro- ceed toward the south. On all streets having an easterly and_westerly course, or divergini less than 45 degrees from an easterly an 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 unmbermfi 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, nunbers 100, and 300 being re- sgcctive]y 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- 'sgond as nearly as may be to the hundreds on the other side by allotting only twenty-five even or 04 Mumbers, as the Csse Tmay be, to each block on the side on which the block is shorter. Not less than twenty-five feet in frontage on any street shall be allowed for each number; provided, that upon petition of a mnjomg of the property-owners on either side of any block, one number may be allotted to each one-fiftieth of the frontage on that side ot the block. Mr. George has 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 imposed 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. Lecture on ‘Ben Hur.”” ‘The Hon. J. W. Fairbank will deliver a lece ture to-night in Plymouth Church, Post street, near Webster, on *‘Ben Hur.” His discoursa will be illustrated with 100 views. Millions Wear GOODYEAR WELT SHOES. Do You? 75" Goodyear Welts are LEATHER SHOES—not rubber, “KINETIC STABILITY." A REMARKABLE SERIES OF ARTICLES, By ROBERT STEVENSON, Scientist. THIS AUTHOR QUESTIONS THE NeEw- 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. For particulars apply to they would not be required to do so. Of \ = P v Y » }