Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-10-11
The New Charter.

EDITORS HERALD--It is not my pur-
pose to discuss the particular merits or
defects of the proposed Charter, nor to
advise or recommend to any one how he
shall vote upon the question. 1t is
always best to look at question from all
sides, and my purpose is merely to make
few suggestions. 1 have heard and
read for sew eral months past great deal
abo ut the necessity of new Charter,
nearly all of it based upon the idea that a
Charter is like suit of clothes, which
after few months or years is outgrown
by the lad for whom it was made or pur-
chased. A great deal Of that sort Of talk
is, to my mind, the purest nonsense and
betrays the partial ignorance of those
advancing such arguments. The organic
law of this city as formulated in the
present Charter appears to me, in every
material respect, exceedingly elastic.
l concede that if the people wanted
to change the present existing law as to
the number of Councilmen and their re-
numeration and as to the power of the
neutrality-suspicious. which it seems to
me, more than any other caused the de-
feat of the late proposed Charter it may
be desirable to adopt new one. But
outside of these radical changes in the
frame work OF the City Government, I
think it may be found upon investiga-
ton that the necessity for new Charter
is more imaginary than real.
submit for investigation and consid-
Grafton the following queries:
First. So far as streets and public i'm
provements are concerned has not the
Supreme Court held that the Vrooman
Act is general law and applies to this
city as we'll as to all other cities, and is
not this sufficient?
Second. Has not the Legisla ure pro-
vided by general law for the issuance of
bonds, ETC., for the construction of sewers
and other like public improve
ments - and if the Vrooman Act
applies, would not the general
law for the issuance of bonds, ETC., as
we'll as all other general acts apply to
this city? And if so, what necessity, SO
far as those things are concerned, is
there for a new Charter? Is not the
limit to the Indebtedness of the city as
fixed in the in the existing Charter, thus
repealed and removed?
Third. What other good provision car
be found in the proposed Charter, OF
which is demanded for the well-being o.
the city, that is not already in the Char
ter of 1873 or which the Charter of 1875
does not authorize the Mayor and Coun
Gil by ordinance or resolution to adopt
would like to pause just here for g
reply, but shall not do 30, and there
fore conclude the queries by propound
ing fourth, equally, if not more iInpor
tant, and on which, admit, my OWE
ideas are not entirely clear.
Fourth. What effect, under the pro
visions of the Constitution, will the
adoption of the Freeholders' Charter
have upon the general existing laws re-
ferred to?
Will it supercede them or not? Viii
not the question as to what is the Law
applicable to this city, be then more con
fused than at present?
So far as / am advised no other cit,
has ever adopted a Freeholder's Charter
Why should this city assume the LEAF
and impose upon itself the delay ant
vexation which I fear is almost certain
to arise, until the question can be author
itatively settled, after prolonged agita
tion, by the Supreme Court.
/ submit these suggestions to you
feeling assured that you and your read
ers will give to them such consideration
as they may deserve. do not propos
to enter into any controversy over them
and as they should stand or fall on thei
own merits, 1 beg to subscribe mysel
merely as one who is deeply intereste
in the good government of the city {
Los ANGELES.