Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-11-13
THE MAYOR,S MESSAGE.
He Answers the City Attorneys
Com muntcattOn.

Hazard, delivered to the Council on
Monday, which was crowded out of yes.
terday mornings paper:
At the last meeting of your honorable
body a communication was read from
the City Attorney regarding the abuse
that has grown up in that department.,
in which the City Attorney attempts to
ljustify it on various pretexts, none of
which, in my opinion are tsnable, and |
supposed the charges made in my COM
munication to you on the subject were of
sufficient moment to warrant an investi-
CATION by your honorable body; but it
seems, instead however, to have resolved
itself into controversy between the City
Attorney and myself, which l willingly
accept. Permit me, however, in this
connection to express the opinion that
the matter is of sufficient Importance to
merit some action on your part, and for
that purpose will endeavor to make
fair reply to the answer of the City At
torney.
The City Attorney says: "I would
call your attention to section 40 of the
charter, which prescribes the duties per-
tanning to this Office" and then goes OH
to state the duties which do no. pertain
to the office.
l would suggest that he should have
stated what it does prescribe, and for
that purpose let me quote the very
| hrst sentence from the section he refers
| us to-:
"Shall be tho duty of the City Attorney
to attend to all suits, matters and things
in which the city may be legally in
terested."
1t does seem to me that the city is in
terested when she is called on to give
deeds to parts of her lands.
l spent two years in that Office, and
during my incumbency the matter of
alternating the city lands was one of the
most important q uestions that confronted
me. and one that called for never.ceasing
vigilance on my part, because the
Council felt justified in relying on the
opinion of the City Attorney in m alters
of that kind, and are accustomed to do
so. Let me illustrate the dangerous
position the prosecuting attorney has
put the city in by the position he has
taken. just let it be known in passing
on the question of granting deeds
to CITY lands, the City Attorney does
not actin his official capacity, but is open
to employment by those seeking deeds;
that when he acts in passing ON appica-
tiohs for city deeds, and his services
have been paid for, they have not been for
Services performed in the line of (his)
my, Il am quoting the language of the
learned attorney duty as an officer of this
city" In that case he is acting for the
person who pays him.
If your honorable body is confronted
with the startling proposition that the
City Attorney and his deputies are in
the employ of the parties who are ask
ing you for deeds from the city, would
suggest that these questions hereafter
should be submitted to attorneys who
ara in the employ of, and who realize
that they are acting for, and not against
the city,
He goes on to say that "these things
have been done by my predecessors in
| office for years, and have been sanctioned
by your honorable body and by the Land
Com ie8, and Therefore have no apol-
ogies to m Ike for my actions"
This abuse did not obtain before the
present Deputy City Attorney occupied
the position he noy does; it originated
under his administration, however, and
when the present City Attorney came into
ths Office he did no. correct the abuse, but
preferred to "divide," and charges all
hi7 predecessors, by way of excuse, with
doing likewise. have the statement Of
the Clerks Of the city that, ever since the
passage of the ordinance he refers to,
directing the deposit of this money with
the Clerk, that no City Attorney except
his immediate predecessor ever drew or
claimed cent of this trust fund. During
that time this Office has been ably filed
by Judge Hutton, Colonel J. F. Godfrey,
Walter D. Stephenson and Judge McKin-
ley. None of these attorneys ever claimed
a cent of money under that ordinance; it
was passed during the incumbency of
Judge Hutton, the ordinance itself being
in his own handwriting. 1t does not
seem the correct thing to charge these
men with such acts when they are not
| true.
Daring two years of that period occu-
pied the office OF City Attorney, and /
always considered that the city was in
terested when an application was made
for deed to city land If the present
City Attorney will kindly examine the
archives in the City Clerks office he will
find that applications are on file for deeds
to large portion of the city land the
city now owns, and had the City Attor-
ney in those cases been acting, not in his
oLhclai capacity, DuI IOr tue appllc9n as
our present City Attorney does, don't
think the city would have much land
left. can refer him to single case of
an application for eighteen acres of land,
where favorable report by the Commit
tee on Lands awaited the opinion OF the
City Attorney, aud he was offered fee
Of 81 900 to make thorough ex GAMMA.
ton into the matter and report, which
he did; but on such examination he
found that the applicant was not entitled
to deed, and so reported to the COM
mittee.
He never got the prohsred fee, which
was declined when offered, nor did the
applicant obtain deed for the land.
Now the city OWNS the land, the appli-
cant having been compelled long since
to abandon all claims thereto, and now
recognizes the title OF the city.
The City Attorney proceeds to say:
"This mas been the law for fourteen
years, and seven successive Councils
and seven successive Mayors have failed
to find any abuse in the law" No fault
could have been found by any Mayor in
the abuse complained of, when it never
had any existence until during the ad.
ministration OF Mayor Workman (when
Mr.: Dunn was Deputy City Attorney.