Los Angeles herald., 1892-11-28
WHAT THE MAYOR SAID OF HIM
City Attorney Charles McFar'
land and His Practices.
Extracts from Mayor Hazards Mes
sages on the Subject.
He Wants a Third Term Because no One
Else Is Competent to Manage the
Legal Affairs OF the City.
References to AIlusions

The Republican candidate for city at
torney-Charles McFarland--is making
a campaign for third term in that
Office upon the ground that he is the
only lawyer in the city of Los Angeles
who is competent to manage the legal
business OF the municipality. AS a
matter of course this claim is preposter-
GUS. There are gentlemen practicing
law in Los Angeles city who, as attor-
neys, rank equally as high in their pro-
fession as Mr.. Mcfarland. Of course
they may not be numerous, but still
there are some. 1t must be admitted, !,
though, that Mr.. McFarland's pro.
fessional standing is 30 high that he is
in several instances not only the attor-
ney OF the city, but for several con-
tractors having business with the city.
The records of the city not only show
that he ia possessed of great thrift, but
that he also stands high with many in
dividuals having business demands Of
various kinds against the city, for whom
he is presumed to work on a princely
salary.
Henry T. Hazard, as mayor of the
city, on October 20, 1889, in message
to the council, numerically scored Mr.
Mcfarland for very fagrant outrage of
professional ethics. Mayor Hazard, in
his message, explains that Mrs. Hannah
4. Phillipson and Pierre Nicolas applied
to the council for city deed to certain
lands to perfect their title. His honor
then goes on to explain:
"Among the documents accompany
ing the proposed deeds, and upon which
the land committee undoubtedly acted
in ordering the issuance of the deeds, is
an opinion favorable to the issuance of
the deeds signed, g. Mcfarland and W.
E. Dunn, Attorneys-at-Law.'
''The manner in which it is signed
evinces an intention on the part of the
signers not to act in their official
character. The reason of this may
exist in the fact that Mrs. Phillipson
and Mr.. Nicolas are by ordinance re-
quired to deposit with the city clerk $50
to cover such expenses as the city may
informed that the attorneys in these
from the clerk the sum of Spin each
NO city officer shall retain any fee,
by him for the discharge of any duty of
his office from any person other than
the city, but ehall Immediately pay
over to the treasurer of the city all
such sums of money 30 received"
On November 4, 1889, the city attor-
ney, Charles Mcfarland, who now seeks
a third term, sent message to the
council, endeavoring to defend his &C.
tiOn.
The mayor. in his message to the
council of November IL, 1889, in reply to
Mr.. Mcfarland, among other things,
said:
"The city attorney, in his commune
cation to you, says: would call your
attention to section 40 OF the charter
which prescribes the duties pertaining
to this Office and then goes on to state
the duties that do not pertain to the Of
fee. I would suggest that he should
have stated what it does prescribe, and
for that purpose let me quote the very
first sentence from the very section he
refers us to: 1T shall be the duty of the
city attorney to attend to all suits, mat
ters and things in which the city may
be legally Interested 1t does seem to
me that the city is interested when she
is called on to give deeds to part of her
land.
''Let me illusirate.the dangerous posi-
ton the present city attorney has put
the city into by the position he has
taken. Just let it be known that in
passing on the question of granting
deeds to city lands the city attorney
does not act in his official capacity, but
is open to employment by those seeking
deeds, that when he acts in passing ap-
plications 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 officer of this
city. In that case he is acting for the
person who pays him."
The mayor then goes on to condemn
Mr.. Mcfarland for his practices, and
charges that he has allowed city deeds
in cases where he received fee OF $25,
and where the abstracts failed to show
that the parties paying the fee were en-
titled to the deed.