The San Francisco call., 1896-03-17
John M. Reynolds Declares the
Document Is Not Broad
Enough.
AS TO SCHOOL TEACHERS
An Answer to Ernest Mccullough on
the Question of Public
Utilities.

John NJ. Reynolds contributes the fol-
lowing letter on the subject of the new
charter, answering particularly an Exam
liner editorial on the question of the school
teachers, and Mr.. McCullough's letter as
to public utilities:
To the Editor of the CaH-DEAR SIR: Re
lying upon your disposition to deal fairly with
l offer a response to an editorial of the 14th
inst. published by the Examiner. 1t reads
thus: at would appear that the greater part
of the work in advocacy Of the new charter
would be found in correcting errors of state
ment in regard to its provisions. Then am
taken to task for stating that all the teachers
the public school system of this State. In
using the words "all a mistake was undoubt-
edly made. The statement should have been
that nearly all" the teachers must be gradu-
ates of Californian schools Since of all the
teachers positions in our primary and gram
mar classes Numbering 9O4) only "a positions
are left open to citizens (from other States),
according to the new charter my statement
does not seem to be very erroneous. 1T was
slight error, admit but hardly worthy OF the
comment it received. The Examiner seems TO
consider such provisions to be proper. It's
tastes have been perverted lately if it is in
clined to depart from the Democratic idea In
| such an important matter as free opportunities
to the best teachers to be obtained for our
children. maintain such policy as the new
charters boycott is not wise patriotic or Just.
No person or newspaper can consistently lay
claim to patriotism while advocating such SEN
timents. Washington's warning against sec
tionalism seems forgotten, in practice, when
such provisions that under consideration
are approved Newspapers could no longer be
| considered honorable if they advertised our
"climate, fertile soil and unbounded re-
sources in New Years edition to allure i'm
| migrants (capaDle of teaching), and at the same
time be striving to curtall their opportunities
to live honestly after they, are here. Is 1t pos
! sible that "the struggle for existence has so
sensitized the press that it yields to false
| principle of short-Sighted selhshness? Where
is this industrial strife expressed. by the pro
vision against teachers from other States In
| the new charter) to end? At one time the cry
! is against the people of the East, as In TINS
| case. Next they will be enticed to come into
| the State by the same persons and papers that
are loudest in endeavoring to enact stringent
measures against their welfare should they
| come. Such is the spirit of that section OF the
new charter which forbids the employment OF
any one in the primary or grammar classes
who is not graduate OF our State schools.
| l appeal to my fellow-citizens Tor mag.
| nanimity, for more love OF country, and
for justice. The approval OF such provisions
as that, of which we now write, means dlsin-
| tegration of society. 1t would be earful i'm
| parchment of California's noted generosity
| and hos ospitality and of our social conditions,
if charter should be approved with such un-
| patriotic restrictions within 1t.
| Reason, also. should dictate otherwise. The
! boycott of good Eastern schoolteachers means
| that Eastern people will make reprlsals and
| boycott us ana our friends. Certainly w. r.
Hearst could not justly expect patronage for
/ his New York paper among New York people
| if he uses the means which may be gained by
all New Workers here. "We must take broader
views," says an Eastern paper, in an article re-
| ferring 10 Californias present attitude. The
boycotting OF good Eastern teachers Is two
| edged sword that it is not best to fool with.
The new charter loses dignity and strength by
| such a small piece of business.
Again the Examiner states that "Mr. J. M.
Reynolds, who is at present the only active
| and open opponent of the instrument" the
new charter), etc. This is hardly true, since
the Trades Union Convention of February 10
declared itself opposed to it, and that action
| has been ratified by many OF the unions rep
resented. This means that there are thou
| sands arrayed against the new charter. Its
| champions represent more dollars, but are not
very strong numerically. Does the ring of the
merchants dollars make. SO much more i'm
| preston that the voices of thousands are un-
! heard and unnoticed? Is the voice OF the 337
merchants OF more significance than the fol-
| lowing resolutions, adopted by the Trades
| Council Alliance, which represented thou
sands of voters? l quote the resolutions
| passed February 16;
| "Resolued, That we denounce the proposed
new charter as perpetuating the infamous and
| wasteful contract system and making 1t COM
| pulsory on future civic authorities; also for
| its provisions directly against the rights and
| interests of labor, in that 1t does not provide
| for the initiative, referendum, proportional
| insuring government OF the people instead OF
| by Bosses"
That is my answer to the statement that my
! position is solitary one. 1t emphasizes the
| claim that the fight over the new charter will
| be one of "tlesh versus property"-the people
| against the monopolies. Since have candfdly
| acknowledged the correction in regard to
| small traction of the school teachers, will the
| Examiner not be equally candid and frankly
| admit that the new charter does contain many
| grave and serious obstacles to municipal own
tarc in yvh or o.
statutes? If so the public can safely be left to
| judge as to the advisability of adopting an in
| strument so dangerous to the future develop
| ment of this City. The pubic should not be
| mised by claims that the new charter ad
vances the possibilities of acquiring public
water and light works when the facts are to
| the contrary.
| In this connection let me briefly answer
Ernest McCulloughs letter, published on the
| 18th inst. The gentleman will excuse me for
| using his own words against him. 1t is done
| to show that such words are not appropriate
| He might be called (no disrespect intended)
! another "ill-advised agitator" who "has gone
| into print" and informs the public that he is
"neither lawyer nor jurist, SO cannot say"
but he "believes" there are many difficulties to
| public ownership existing now which the new
| charter would brush aside. He believes in
| agitating for the new charter and other things
| favored by the Merchants Association, but
seems to think other men should not exercise
| the american right of thinking for them
| selves" and agitate against it or for other
| things.
| He admits that the new charter imposes
| limitations upon the Board of Supervisors and
! he calls them .'safeguards." "Safeguard No.
| l" is the provision that the Supervisors must
| take into consideration the existing plants if
| they can be acquired at the same price that
| new works could be built. The corporations
| would like to have the new charter read that
| their plants should be bought at their price,
but as that would be audacious a clause was
slipped in to the effect that they must be con-
! sidered If they can be acquired on the same
terms as neY works could be constructed So
their minds would be easy if the new charter
passed. They could 60 on with their extortion
with the satisfaction that if 1t ever came to "a
| showdown they will rae in their stake any
way That is Safeguard No. L" (for them)
The Safeguard No. % according to the
same authority is that three-fourths of the
Su pervisors must affirmatively vote in favor of
submitting proposition for public ownership
to their employers, the people, before it can be
done. The associated vilainies'' do not want
to lose their mOnopolies, and would have pre-
ferred that it were made necessary that all
twelve of the Supervisors must vote affirma-
lively before the people could acquire works
of their own This, however, would have been
too barefaced. So they will be satisfied with
the provisions of the new charter, which will
enable them to obstruct the peoples wish by
controlling four of the Supervisors. The above
entioned gentleman has the simplicity to
assert that is another Safeguard" for the peo-
pie and calls it Safeguard No. g." These linn