[421] San Francisco Bulletin, October 17, 19, 1891; San Francisco Chronicle, October 18, 1891.
[422] San Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 1891.
[423] San Francisco Bulletin, November 4, 1891.
[424] It was the position of the executive committee of the Traffic Association, and in this they were supported by the traffic expert whom they employed, that it would be exceedingly bad policy for San Francisco to antagonize the interior by endeavoring to secure special advantages for itself. (San Francisco Chronicle, December 10, 1892.)
The Traffic Association was said to be, under its constitution and by-laws, a state institution, organized to promote the welfare of the whole state. The executive committee did not believe that San Francisco should be made the sole terminal even were this possible. The city would assume its proper and legitimate place not as the oppressor, but as the protector of every industry in the state, provided free competition and equally adjusted local rates could be secured. (Ibid., December 18, 1892.)
[425] San Francisco Chronicle, November 3, 1892.
[426] Ibid., December 7, 1892. The reply of the executive committee of the Traffic Association to this address is printed in the San Francisco Examiner, December 18, 1892.
[427] Sacramento Union, April 4, 1892.
[428] Ibid., May 13, 1892. San Francisco merchants declared that it was cheaper to send nails from San Francisco to Bakersfield via Los Angeles, water and rail, than to move them direct by rail over the floor of the San Joaquin Valley.
[429] San Francisco Bulletin, November 23, 1891. Mr. Leeds was given a two-year appointment, at a salary of $12,000 per annum.