The San Francisco call., 1896-08-16
Ten Reasons Set Forth for
Taking an Attitude of
Hostility.
A LONG ARGUMENT OFFERED.
Criticism of Many Essential Details
of the New Plan for NUM-.
cipal Government.

A pamphlet is in circulation in the City,
which has the caption: "Why the pro-
posed new charter should not be adopted"
The reasons which are alleged for opposi-
tion to the charter are enumerated on one
page, concisely, as follows:
First-It is too long.
Second-It is dangerously, if not fatally, de-
fective.
Third-It practically prohibits municipal
ownership of public utilities, and retsrds in
stead OF expediting business
Fourth-It is uncertain and contradictory in
its provisions.
Eifth-It is unconstitutional in many ana
important respects.
Sixth-It is unwise in its policy.
Seventh-It places too much power in the
hands of one man.
Eighth-It reverses the natural order of mu-
nicipal administration in giving legislative
power to the Mayor, instead OF making the
authors OF laws responsible for the enforce
ment OF them.
Ninth-It violates the natural right of many
persons to earn living in profession for
which they are qualified; and
Tenth-H adopted, it will take longer and be
more difficult to amend it than. after rejecting
it, to prepare and adopt a wisely conceived
and just charter.
The pamphlet having MADE these aver
ments proceeds to discuss them seriatlm.
Concerning the length of the proposed
charter the following is alleged:
at is unnecessarily and dangerou sly
long. It is longer than the Magma Charta
and Bill of Rights of Great Britain, the
Declaration of American Independence,
the constitutions of the United States and
OF Caiifornia-itis is twice as long as these all
combined. It contains nearly 80 900 words
and innum cradle provisions, every one of
which will have to be passed upon by the
Supreme Court before we can be assured
OF their meaning"
AS to whe ther the proposed charter is
fatally defective" as alleged the author
of the pamphlet asserts in substance, that
no Office is made elective except the Super
visors. that it defeats the municipal own
eIship of public. utilities and retards in
stead of expediting business and meta
phorically places the great municipal cor
poration of San Francisco in a strait
jacket" For particulars the pamphlet
public light and water works, under the
proposed charter, the following conditions
are essential:
First-Tbe Mayor must be IL favor of it.
Seeond-The entire Board OF Public Works
must favor it, and
in favor of it before any such proposition can
be submitted to the people.
Itis alleged that sit 1.-THE proposed char
teri does not provide any means by which
the Mayor, who is to rule all departments
OF the City Government, is to get his Office,
lOE 1OT Iue eIScJlOn Dy the people OF any
officer except the Supervisors; but does
say (ArticIe IA, section 26) that every office
not made elective by this charter shall
become vacant Immediately on the taking
effect of this charter. If the charter is
adopted in Novem Der next and is approved
by the Legislature of California (accord-
ing to the provision quoted) we will have
no head Of government, no Auditor, no
Assessor, no Tax Collector no Treasurer,
no Recorder, and the legality of the acts
OF every one of these officials, if they seek
to retain their Office, will be called in
question by interested parties. Rich cor
porations will seek to evade their taxes
and refuse compliance to the City ordi-
nances because of the equiYocal and doubt
ful position OF the Mayor and other off,
GERS, and chaos would reign in every de-
partm ent."
The charter is attacked because sit re-
quires that all city work amounting to
more than $500 shall be done by contract"
and also on the ground that it is ''uncer-
tain and contradictory and contains ridic-
uloUs repetltlons." The allegations of the
pamphlet on this point are as follows:
In granting powers there are two sys-
TENS. One Is to give absolute power
minus such express reservations as shall
be desired. The other is to give specified
powers and retain by implication all 9TH
ers. The authors have sought to combine
the two. They first granted absolute pow
ers and then undertook to qualify the
grant by clauses making specific grant of
each power intended to be given, thereby
creating the confusion from which there is
no outlet save through the courts for until
the courts have passed upon the matter
we have no way of knowing what powers
are granted and what withheld. This is
an example of careless construction, OF
which there are many in the proposed
charter. We shall briefly mention one
more. On page 66 it is provided that the
Public Administrator shall be appointed
bv the Mayor, while on page 211 it is pro-
vided that whenever the laws of the State
of California shall have been so altered
and amended as to permit the apooint-
ment of Public Administrator he shall be
appointed by the Mayor. The first quoted
provision is unconstitutional. The courts
alone can tell what the other may be.i
As to the charge that the proposed
charter is unconstitutional the following
specifications are made. 1t conflicts with
the laws of the State by its restriction on
the power of the Supervisors to fix the tax
levy; the civil service rules are unconsti-
tutional; the Board of Education is an
constitutional. AS a recapitulation one
page is under the caption, ''Unwise in
Policy" and the following are given as
instances of unwisdom:
Firss-Because it fixes the salaries of nearly
every class of employees, so that a change can
only be obtained by charter amendment.
Second-Because it favors contract work and
day labor whenever the projected
i'm D toyement shall cost m ore than $500.
Third-Because itrenders it extremely diff !
cult for the City to undertake the construction
of water, gas and electric light works and
street railroads on It's own account
Fourth-Beeause il provides (article II, chap |
ter /, section y that the Supervisors shall be |
elected from the City and County at large, |
whereby il may easily come about that one
ward may secure to itself an undue share of !
leaving to others none at all.
Fifth-Because it makes the Board of Public |
Works a body appointed by the Mayor. sys- /
EN- which Oakland has done away with with |
N the past two years in order to make the |
Board OF Public Works an elective body-be- |
,ause the appointive system was very unsatis- /
yet the advocates of the charter |
oudly proclaim this feature as one Of its ad- /
sixtR-And it fs-moreover inexpedient, be-
,ause it gives place to red tape. where SIM +
,licity would be much preferable.
The other principal allegations are:
That it makes the Mayor municipal die
ator; that it reverses the natural order OF
u municipal administration in giving Iegis-
ative powers to the Mayor instead of re-
serving the administration as well as the