Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-30
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHARTER.

The discussion of the new charter which
is to be voted upon by the people of San
Francisco on the Sth September has long
since reached the stage of mutually IN
iurious imputation. Both sides deal in
angry accusations of impure motives, and
the general result is of course to feed
partisan aeIiimony without convincing the
doubters. For any dispassionate and
profitable consideration of the main points
of difference it is desirable to assume that
the contending factions are equally sincere,
and equally disposed to seek the best good
of the community. There is plenty of
room for honest difference of opinion on the
character of the charter, and to an I'M
BIASED observer it appears quite conceiv-
able that both the opponents and advocates
of the instrument may be inspired by the
same public spirit and the same earnest
conviction. The dispute, which at first
was diffusive, and embraced sharp
skirmishing over details, has now
settled down principally upon the very i'm
portant question of the powers proposed to
be conferred upon the Mayor. The trainers
of the charter have proceeded on the the
DRY that it was safest to give that officer
extended powers, especially in regard to
appointments, and to exact from him the
fullest responsibility. They have sought
to impose check upon him by requiring
the Endorsement of the Board of Aldermen
for all his appointments, and they point to
the alleged success of this method in other
large American cities, as a sufficient war
rant for its introduction. The opponents
of the charter apprehend the failure of the
proposed system through the election of
unfit candidates for the Mayoralty, and they
assert that since there can be no guarantee
against the election of bad men to the
Office, neither can there be any security
against the complete prostitution of
the appointing power sought to be
vested in him. The advocates of the
charter reply to this objection that the in
crease of responsibility and power in the
Office of Mayor will impose upon nomina.
ting conventions the obligation of making
more careful selections will thus practi.
cally exclude Objectionable men from can
didature and will also cause voters to
look more sharply after the character of
the nominees. 1t is evident from this out
l ne of some of the staple positions of the
disputants that the question is grave one,
and that there is very much to be said on
both sides. 1t must be admitted that
when an elective officer is given
wide appointing power, the admin
istration of his office will de.
pend largely, if not altogether, upon
the character and motives of the
bodies which select the candidates. The
theory that the people can be trusted to
make wise selections in such cases is hardly
relevant, the fact being that as a rule the
people do not make selections at all, and
are only allowed the opportunity to choose
between the two or perhaps three men who
have been put forward by anything but
open methods. But it must be pointed
out that if this is an objection it applies
alike to all elective Offices, and that there
fore it must apply to the substitution of
elections for appointments in the offices
now proposed to be put under the Mayors
authority. The difficulty in the case, in
fact, seems to grow out OF the nature of
partisan machinery, which as things are
must take the precedence in controlling
force of whatever arrangements the franz
ers of charter can devise.