Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-25

Indorsed by the committee,
Questions TO be Considered.

Endorsed by the committee.
Questions 30 be Considered.
EDITORS HERALD-The interests of the
people have always suffered to some ex.
tent from the fact that many of those
chosen to attend to public interests for
get the good of the people in seeking
personal gain and reputation. This truth
never, perhaps, applied in go great 9
measure as it does today. A public
official is just as much servant or en-
ployee in every material sense as is any
clerk in a mercantile establishment
The public official has even greater obli-
cations than the usual employee. The
latter receives stipulated amount in
payment of his time and the perfor nance
of specified duties; whereas the official
not only receives pay for his services.
but enjoys the honors incident to his po-
sition, as also the knowledge that be has
the trust and confidence OF his constitu-
ency. Failure on the part of the clerk
to perform his prescribed duty satisfac-
torily results in his dismissal without
recommendation. Failure on the part Of
the public's servant cannot be as speed
i,y rewarded in practical way. Yet
his self-consciousness of regret must
crush his self-respect, and his knowing
that he is unworthy of the peoples con.
| fidence and trust and bis consequent in
gratitude must place him, even in his
own estimation, below such Of the brute
creation as manifest some appreciation.
A public official is supposed to and
should look to the peoples interests as
if they were his own. While acting for
the people he virtually is the people.
Hence cannot, at the same time, be and
act for himself. Reverse this truth and
it will appear that if in performing pub
lie duties he considers self-interest, he is
acting for self and actually violating his
official cath, his moral obligations and
the confidence of his friends.
l am aware that these are old fogy
ideas that there is sentiment involved
in them which the rush and furry of
the present age is calculated to cause us
to lose sight of. But they are potent
truths, none the less and when dug up
ard turned to the light they shine with
as much lustre now as they did in days
past, when the saying that "a public
office is public trust" meant more than
it does teday, more's the pity.
Being q practical business man, l
have acquired the habit of looking at
business propositions in a practical busi-
nesslike way. | have read much about
this sewer question, and after doing 30
put the question to myself: If (or any
member of the City Council), as an in.
dividual, think the circumstances and
the benefits to be derived from the con-
structien of storm drains warrant the
expenditure of 30 great an amount on
them? If the property endangered by
not having storm drains was mine, could
l not provide some other far less expen-
sive safeguard? By putting $50S 900 in
| a tive which would be of service
only three months (the rainy season. in
twelve, would not virtually be paying
interest on four times the amount, or
81, 320, 600 for benefits derived? Would
l not consider the cost too great to &C.
complish the end sought?
Again--would 1 seriously contem plate
spending 81 900, 600 in building an out
fall sewer through which to throw away
water, when l knew that water was
worth 81 900 per inch? Would spend
all the money l could raise on my avail
able assets in building the main sewers,
knowing that these would be of little
service to me without thousands of con-
nections, which would cost vast amount
of money? And, again, would l be
foolish enough to start out on a fixed
plan when l know that no undertaking
OF like magnitude of character was ever
completed without numerous difficulties
being met which were not contemplated
and could not have been foreseen, rend-
eriDg material change in original plans
absolutely necessary? Would l not, also,
know that such changes, almost invari-
ably, add to, rather than decrease, the
cost? Il had my plans fixed and their
contamination was thought by other
parties to work an injury to them, and
these parties said to me that l could
carry out my plans only at the termins-
ton of lengthy lawsuit, would borrow
and commence paying interest on the
money, regardless of this fact or, would
l first make peace with such parties, or
change my plans?
These are common-sense questions.
Many more equally applicable and po'
tent suggest themselves. My object is
only to have each party interested look
at this as personal matter. If we (or
members of the CounciD as individuals,
should act for ourselves in business
transactions as the City Council has
acted for US in this matter, would we
long be given credit for much business
or financial ability, or be thought worthy
OF positions of trust by our fellow. men?
OBSERVER.