Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-01
LETTER BAG.
rhs City Attorney Turned Down.

EDITORS HERALD: Iu the matter of
our local politics, honesty and efficiency
of the applicant should measure his
right to the Office to which he aspires.
The promoters of Mr.. McFarland's
candidacy to a third term as city attor-
new claim the right to his election (of
which the great Republican doctine of
free government is violated by this per-
petuity of office in one man), on the
sole ground of the remarkable ability,
efficiency, honesty and integrity of this
| particular officer.
This being the case in the issue, as to
| this particular officer, it is proper to in
ouire in what matter or in what man.
ner the voters and taxpayers of this city
have been benefited during his two
terms of office, by his remarkable abil-
! ity, which calls upon the voters to vio-
late the safe and well-established rule,
that two terms in the same Office, con-
secutively, limits the right of the Office
holder.
As we have said it is proper to make
this inquiry. Now what has this par
ticular genius done? In the first place,
offices and everything appurtenant to
1 u
PAYERS, but he is further furnished with
two deputies, at further cost to the
taxpayers of nearly $4,000 year, which
1 as taxpayer of this city claim is en-.
tirelv unnecessary.
To demonstrate this fact l need but to
state that Mr.. Mcfarland has done
more business, outside OF his official
business, for private parties, than he
ever did before his election. A large
part of this service was rendered to
contractors and other persons dealing
directly with the city, and that while he
and his two deputies were drawing
large salaries from the city for their SER
vicee.
Now as to his efficiency, desire to
call the Taxpayers attention to two par.
ticular cases.
First-The changing of the grade OF
Temple street. Proceedings for that
purpose were begun in 1890. The prop.
erty owners along that important
thoroughfare have been encountered
with the threat of condemnation and
assessment therefor, up to the date oi
this writing, and large and unnecessary
expenses have been incurred in this
useless proceeding. No one could sell
no one would buy. The threatened en-
cumbrance still stands against this prop.
erty.
Secondly-We call the attention oI
the voters to the fact that, when the
question first arose as to the manner in
which company known as the Citi
zens' Water company was distributing
water on the hills, and meetings were
being called to demonstrate against the
failure to supply good and sufficient
water, Mcfarland publicly stated, be-
fore the meetings, that said company
by the violation of its contract, had for
feited its franchise, and that he would
see that it was forfeited.
This pledge was made to obtain his
second term OF office. After his re-elec.
ton he brought suit Ga mere pretense
OF carrying his pledge in which action
he alleged no facts that would entitle
the people to relief; but in fact drew the
complaint in such a manner that no
court could do anything but sustain de-
murrer to it, which. was done by Judge
Shaw in written opinion rendered and
filled December 81, 1891. To which
opinion we respectfully call the atten-
tiou OF the voters on the hills as to the
great efficiency and ability OF this third
| terr1er. This opinion of Judge Shaw
is q thorough and cogent exposition OF
the pretenses of this able gentleman to
be the only man in either party that
can manage the legal affairs of the city,
and it is go conclusive upon the ques.
tion, that it puts it beyond doubt. II
Mr. Mcfarland can answer these objec-
tions we may have more to say anon.
II. S. ORME.
Ios Aupelas Novemhar 2Oth