The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-16

would be entitled to teach in the schools
OF San Francisco.
Mr.. Hecht explained the clause regard
ing the education Of teachers in the public
scnooi system of California DE stated
that the board Of freeholders had been
urged 70 incorporate the clause. In the
past school Directors had given impecun-
lous relatives from all parts OF the United
states positions in the schools and the cry
went mp from people at home.
A man told him: II won't vote for
your charter. There's one thing in 1t
can't support"
my dear sir" replied NJ. Hecht, 81
helped to frame the charter, and there are
twenty things in il that don't like"
Healy delivered heated address which
stirred the house. He held that the
trouble with the charter was it favored
corporate interests.
Judge Van Reynegom remarked that
there was considerable misunderstanding
regarding the clause referring 10 public
schools This, ike the rest OF the char
ter hs said, was subject 10 the general
laws OF the State and. consequently, it
was very much exaggerated in importance.
Cuthbertson, the architect, spoke against
the proposed charter. E. 2. Van DuZer
replied, and showed that the appointIve
power given the Mayor by the new char
ter was desirable in view of present condi-
tons.
Mr.. Freud closed the debate in favor OF
the charter. In his speech he said:
First obieetion-It is claimed that the char
ter Is toe long.
Answer-The charter contains 90 pages of
sn Ordinary phamphlet in large type. The
eonsondauon set comprises 462 pages OF q
phamphlet the same size, but much smaller
Second objeedon-It Is claimed that no de-
slraole charter could be framed within thirty
days without fatal and serious defects
If7e1 frar- Of ~ka af,o
nnlteo 70 ninety days by the constitution OF
the state, and out of ninety days nearly sixty
Gays were used IN determining the validity OF
tne ensrter convention. The thirty days re-
manning would be too short time in which 10
create new charter. It must, however. not be
forgotten thst the trainers OF this cnarter had
the oenent OF the three preceding charters, as
well As drafts OF two specially prepared so
that, II IS true, the charter as now submitted Is
not new creation, but in reality 6 revision of
the exceIlent Work OF these preparatory Ell
forts This accounts for the preparation OF
this present charter in so brief s time without
having any serious or fsIal defects, SIS have
Third Objectionable opponents of the char
Ter clslm inst II VIII make the Mayor NUM-
cipai dictator
Ans8er-A careful examination Of the pro-
visions Of the charter will Clearly show that
this claim is without foundation. As soon IS
the ehsrter goes into effect the Mayor viii sp-
point the City Attorney, Public Admins traitor.
Board OF Public Works, Park Commissioners,
Library Trustees, Police Commissioners, Fire
commissioners Board Of Health, Election
Commissioners and Civil Service Commits
sioners- Al other officials OF the city viii re-
main elective under the constitution and gen.
erSl laws OF the State Until such time as the
institution shall have been changed by the
people, sll other ofieisis win therefore be
elected by the people as heretofore, with the
exception OF the Superintendent OF Streets and
Surveyor. who are abolished under the charter.
Examining. therefore, the list OF appointments
by the Mayor, it viii readily appear that the
Mayor, under the charter, VIII appoint
elected By the people These two officials are
the City Attorney and the Public Admins
traitor All the other Commissioners and TruS-
tees appointed By the Mayor are now either
appointed by the Governor or hold office for
lie or are newly created Therefore. the
people viii not be deprived OF their privil eye
OF eleetlng otieisls as at present except in the
case OF the City Attorney and Public Admins
traitor. While the Mayor who is n office when
the charter goes into eject viii appoint al
these Commissioners, subsequent Mayors wiz
appoint but two of them, IS they 60 out Of
I office in rotation and the term Of the Mayor 10
limited 10 two years
Fourth obiecuon-Itis claimed by those who
have specifically read Albert ShAW's works
upon Municipal Government in Great Britain
and on the continent Of Europe that the idea
/ OF selecting Mayor instead OF . Council al the
head of e city government Is erroneous, and
should not Be done n the case OF San Fran
/ cisco
Answer-Th:s conclusion is not based upon 8
/ thorough study OF the works OF Albert shaw
nor any other prominent writer upon munich
/ pal government Albert Shsw himself in the
! preface OF his work upon Municipal Govern.
I ment in Great Britain, psge 7, says: 81 have
/ no intention 70 prescribe European remedies
! for American msladieS. nor TO suggest any de.
I gree whatsoever of imitation We must deal
/ with our own problems in our own way" II Is
/ therefore clear that Albert shaw himself would
I not recommend the adoption OF q system OF
/ government that our torefsthezs had sban-
! doned.
Professor Edmund J. James of the Universfty
/ Of Pennsylvania puts the case Clearly in the
/ following words OF his excellent address upon
/ The Elements OF Model Charter for Ameri
can Cities:
'.No European city Of large size has anything
/ like the same problems 70 solve on the polIti-
cal Size OF its administration as our own cities
/ and while the objects 70 be sttsined-Hell
paved streets. OF good water, OF good light, oi
/ sanitary conditions in general-sTe the same
| the obstacles IL the way OF securing these
! things II the two continents are ss many
points OF radically different character Nc
one could have studied the actual method o!
administration OF English snd German cities
Without being struck By the fact that IL i
/ based on government oy committees. system
/ which inherited by our American common.
l weslIhs from England broke down absolutely
| and completely under the stress of modern
| political developments IN the United States
1 The form OF government under which Dublin
snd London and Berlin are we'll administered
hiss proven itself an absolute failure n oul
] larger American cities"
Fifth obieetion-It is claimed By the Cd
| pODents OF the charter tEsIit Is fatally defect
| which the Mayor and some other City Official,
can get into Office.
Answez-It would be wholly suPerhuous fol
| the charter 70 make any such provision Ths
election OF these officials is provided for undsl
/ the constitution and general laws OF the State
| The charter viii not supplant the constitution
or any general laws OF the State, or any specis
| laws that are not inconsistent with IL As tn;
charter allows these officials 10 Be elected
they viii continue 20 be elected as heretofore
/ sixth Questionable opponents OF the char
1 ter clsim that IL Is Unconstitutional because IL
I some OF its provisions il may prove 70 be in
consistent with the constitution and genera
| laws OF the state.
AnsEer-No human law Is perfect II an
/ particular provision OF the new charter shall
! tura cut 70 be unconstitutional IL viii be onll
1 tol8oVlng the natural course OF 0Ihet organs
] laws Inc constitution OF the United State
anu the constitution Of California were botf
found necessary 20 be changed By subseQuen
ection OF the people.
Seventh obiecton-The opponents Of ths
onsrter claim that il viii Be an i'm pediment Il
municipal ownership Of public utili ties-
AnsTer-An exsIa1n alton OF the three pro
/ visions IN The Charter bearing upon this sub
Jet Clearly show that this is not the case
ample provisions are made for acquiring pub
lie utilities
4 oR-