Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000022 30

Image

File
Download upr000022-030.tif (image/tiff; 24 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000022-030
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Director General of Railroads. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad i m ---- California Mutual Packing Co. Los Angeles, February 11, 1920 £-12-443 Mr. J. Ross Clark: Herewith papers ending with letter from Auditor Evans to A.L.Woodill, with reference to machinery and other expenses incurred in connection with the packing house occupied by the California Mutual Packing Company at Riverside. You have copy of my letter of January 30th to Mr. Comstock, which explains my connection with the proposi­tion. -4>rder No.17054 is for a separator to separate the frosted fruit. I understand the purchase was made after conversation on the train one night between Messrs. Woodill and Cullen. Without this separator it is stated the output of the house would have been at least 20 care less than it was. The bill for $5.25 for recharging the fire extinguishers was compulsory to protect insurance, and the lessee was compelled to do so vin order to comply with the terms of the policy. The bill for $33.00 for the chimney was to make the office livable, as the building had been erected without any provision for a fire. The other bills are for maintenance of the machinery in the house, and the fruit could not have been packed without these expenditures. I feel satisfied that ^he Corporation would have expended all of this money eventually, and do not think it consistent to refuse to accept the bills simply because the lessee, in order to bring the property up to its proper effi­ciency, at a time when the fruit was coming in and had to be taken care of, proceeded with the work. Can you not authorize the application of the amount involved against the rental due June 30, 1919? Yours very truly,