Los Angeles herald., 1892-12-28

vote and rejected by vote OF ayes
/, ! no (Mr. Innes), and having failed
receive the requisite majority the cha
declared the motion lost.
y LAID OVER ORDINANCES.
The ordinances for sewers on Haye
Water and Walnut streets came up fc
consideration, and on motion of M
, Nickel the subject matter was pos
poned to the 1st day of March, or tn
first meeting OF the council to be hel
thereafter.
FROM THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT.
The street superintendent reported
recommending granting of 60 days
further time to contractor for grading
graveling and curbing Hill street be
tween First and Twentieth streets
Adopted. Also that the services of sewe
fushers be dispensed with, as tn,
sewers are now in good running order
Adopted.
FROM THE BOARD OF HEALTH.
The board Of health reported back tt
the council the petition of J. L. Hunt et
AL, complaining Of the nuisance caused
by the pond ofwater at First street, east
of Rosemont avenue. The board state
that 1t is the fault of defective work in
grading the street, or defective specifca.
tions for the work. Placed on file.
A protest of the board OF health against
the proposed smelter was filed.
LAND COMMITTEE WORK.
The land committee reported recon.
mending that the application of Magda-
lena w. Sabichi for quit claim deed be
granted. Adopted. Also that N. P.
Roberts petition to be allowed to raise
hay crop on certain land be referred to
the incoming council. Adopted.
ORDINANCES OF INTENTION.
The ordinance of intention to con-
struct cement sidewalk on Los Angeles
street, from Winston to Fifth street,
was referred to the incoming council
Same reference was made of the ordin-
ance to sidewalk Winston from Main to
Wall. The ordinance for improving
Fifth street from Main to San Pedro
was fled, the work being finished. The
ordinance for improving Franklin street
from New High TO Broadway was filed,
The work being about completed. The
ordinance to sidewalk Second street,
from Grand avenue to Olive, was re-
fered to the incoming council.
THE INCOMING OFFICIALS.
Official bonds were presented and ap-
proved as follows: J.. w. Hinton as
city assessor in the sum of $4,000, with
J. D. Bicknell, 7. J. Weldon and ]. W.
Henderson as sureties.
Charles Mcfarland as city attorney in
the cum of $4,000. with Albert Nc.
Farland and Dan Mcfarland as sureties.
D. A. Watson as street euperinten-
dent in the sum of $4,000, with W. G.
Furrey, l. W. Hellman, Simon Maier, j.
A. Blumve and II. A. Unruh as sure
ties.
Fred A. Tesle as city auditor in the
sum of $4,000, with F. J. o. F. Brant
and Sherman Smith as sureties.-
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT.
The city attorney reported as follows:
"The city clerk has called my attention
to the fact that the funding bonds have
been signed by the different officers,
are in the vault of his Office, and asks
what should be done with them. advise
that they be turned over to the inco M
ing officers and receipts taken thereof"
The bonds were ordered destroyed.
charged upon the books of the city au-
ditor with $3329.l2 interest upon the
city's money due from the City bank,
and asks that credit be given him for the
same, in order to equare his books. /
advise that the necessary credit be en-
tered up for that purpose" Lost.
I'm regard to the petition OF Ed s.
Irwin, leciting that at the last election
he received 1926 votes for member of
council from the Ninth ward; George
Schneider So votes, j. G. Evans 10 votes
and George w. Campbell 372 votes; that
a certificate Of election was issued to Mr..
Campbell, and reciting that lie is ineli
gible to hold that Office for the reason
that he was not qualified citizen of the
United States; and for that reason asks
that he Qrvin) be declared the duly
elected member of the council
from the Ninth ward. The face
of the returns have shown that DR..
Campbell received the most votes,
and a certificate of election was properly
Issued to him. Whether he was citizen
or not is something which this council
cannot inquire into; that being matter
which will have to be determined by the
courts. If all the facts stated by Mr..
Irwin were true, he ie not entitled to the
certificate nor to the Office, as be has
not received majority or plurality of
the votes cast. This question has been
directly decided in Saunders against
Heines, 13 CAL, page 145; and Crawford
against Dunbar, 81 CAL. page 80, in
which the court says: AN election is
the deliberate choice of the majority or
plurality of the electoral body. This is
evidenced by the votes of the electors.
But if majority oi those voting, by
mistake of law or fact, happen to cast
their votes upon an ineligible candidate,
it by no means follows that the next to
him on the poll shall receive the office.
If this be 30 a candidate might be
elected who received only small por-
tion of the votes, and who never could
have been elected at all but for this
mistake. The votes are not less legal
votes because given to q person in
whose behalf they cannot be counted
and the person who is next to him on
the list of candidates does not receive
plurality of votes, because his compet-
itor was ineligible. The votes cast for
the latter, it is true, cannot be counted
for him; but there is no reason why
they should in effect be counted for the
former, who possibly, could never have
received them. 1t is fairer, more Just
and more consistent with the theory of
our rinsti.utions, to hold the votes 80
cast as merely Intellectual for the pur-
pose of an election, than to give them
the effect OF disappointing the popular
- m