Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-10

The situation is very difficult one, be-
yond doubt. If the Kearneyites were
really sincere fanatics, who believed that
they could somehow obtain reform by
riotous demonstrations, the prospect of put
ting them down once for all would be
much better. But their leaders are slrewd
demagogues who are using the movement
as political dodge, and who wish to keep
the community in constant state OF
anxiety and pneasiness, but do not con-
template actual violence. 1t is possible
that some pressure might be brought to bear
upon them now, but we confess that this
strikes US as forlorn hope. They propose
to Just keep on the skirts of the law, and
if they do it is not easy to see how
they can be dealt with. A Citizens
Protective Union may be an admirable
organization for suppressing an actual riot,
bat what can it do with such state of
things as now exists? 1t would seem that
the citizens are to wait until their oppo-
nents commit some overt act of lawless-
ness. But the Sandlotters are not likely
to attempt anything of this kind while the
citizens are prepared. They can afford to
wait. 1t consists with their programme to
wait. Yet all this time San Francisco
will be taking more and more serious
injury, and all this time the lawless or
ganization and the lawless menace and
tendencies will remain as strong as ever
Is tine Citizens Protective Union to be e
permanent organization, and is San
francisco to be hereafter divided into
two armed camps, each watching the
otherl Clearly such state of
things would be intolerable, and yet that
is what the situation seems to shadow
forth at this moment. The restoration of
order and peace in that community can
only be secured by the adoption of policy
which viii not only postpone trouble, but
make it impossible. Kearneyism cannot
be suppressed by merely holding it at arms
length. Some day the arm will tire, ii
that is attempted, and meantime there will
be no recovery of confidence. The evil is in
fact one which needs elimination in the
most thoroughgoing way, and to this con-
viction the people of San Francisco must
bring themselves eventually, or they will be
doomed to endure the curse indefinitely.
TEE TERMS OF COUNTY OFFICERS.
Senate Bill No. 337 provides that call
county and township fficers, exceptJudges
''of the Superior Court and Supervisors,
''must be elected at the general election
held in November, eighteen hundred and
4. eighty-two, and every four years there
after, and hold Office for four years from
60 the first Monday in January next after
"their election" The effect of this bill
is to continue in Office the present county
and township officers, and thus to obviate
the necessity OF another election between
now and November, 1882. The PROPOSE
ton strikes US as being in the line of sound
public policy. Nothing is more injurious
and demoralizing than too frequent cleo
tions. There is no possibility Of OBJ
lection in the. present case on the
score of an unusually long term of
Office, for the term of the present
officers, if extended to 1882, would only be
three years in all. As tie case stands. the
danger is that new election will have to
be held before the present incumbents have
had time to learn their duties. The public
service suffers greatly by such sudden
changes, and the intrigues and combinations
which are encouraged by so constant sue
cession of elections keep the community in
a perpetual ferment. When a reasonably
good set of officers is once installed, it is
for the general well-being that they should
continue in office at least long enough to
prove their capacity, and there can be no
doubt that in many Offices it would be
10 the general advantage if incum-
bency was during good behavior. OF
course office-seekers and strong parti-
sans OF Whatever Poh1Ss are Aheiy
to object to any proposition which lessons
the chances of quick rotation in Office: but
the people ought to know by this time
that rotation in Office is one of the great
est hindrances to competent performance
of public duties, and that the principle has
done more to engcnder corruption ard in
efficiency than any other instrumentality.
We can see no good in any multiplication
of elections. They cost the people great
deal of money, and taxation is too high
already. And they cost more than the
mere cash outlay, for they prevent the
development of efficiency in office. At