The herald., 1898-09-29
Open Letter No. 2

Open Letter No. 2
W. II. Holabird, Esq: Whether a contro-
versy Is through the public press OF
through sombrero, II Is sometimes neces-
sary in order to controvert and prevent
the perpetuation of errors and wrong i'm
pressiors Willingly or unwittingly given,
the public through the same mediums.
From your letter published In Wednes-
days Herald 1t appears very evident that
was justified in pronouncing your strict
ures upon the council as a specimen of
wholesale, indiscriminate, ill-advised and
misapplied criticism" since the grounds of
your complaint as recited therein are as
Jusionary and unreal as the vaporized re-
ports concerning the Seventh regiment.
AS to the weakness Of the 1800-foot park
ordinance, concerning which foible silence
need no longer be main ntained, since every
body except your worthy self seems to
have full knowledge of the subject, permit
me to say:
Ffrst-That some weeks ago, when you
asked the advisability Of presenting pc
tition referring to the alleged weakness of
the ordinance and asking for its reforma-
ton, you will recall advised against such
action and stated that thought 1t poor
Judgment to admit to the world that our
law was no good; that we had much better
stand upon the ordinance firmly and ad-
NIT defeat only after q contest. 1t was
then explained to you that the only weak
point in the ordinance was the projection
of the 1GO0-foot line upon the other side OF
the ridge from the park In one particular
direction. and that the only means of
Strengthening the ordinance was to con-
tract the line so as to make 1t conform to
the crest of the ridge; and that 1t would be
time enough to deal with that when our
present position became legally unteuable.
In the light Of this conversation Of only
short time ago, am truly surprised that
you should express in your last letter the
expectation that the public would justify
your course in denouncing the councilmen
as reprobates because they did not act
upon the request made in your petition and
change the present ordinance by contract
ing the limits thereof. Let me show you the
absurdity Of your position as revealed by
your own letter. It recites the presentation
of the Improvement associations petition
to the council on September 9Th wherein the
reported weakness was alluded to and
to 'fully protect the area within the limit
prescribed by said ordinance" The ordi-
nance then stood and now stands just as
strong for the protection of "the area with
in the limit prescribed by said ordinance"
as it can possibly be made. Let me repeat
that If it Is weak 1t is because OF the very
'area within the limit prescribed" You
perhaps recall that petition from J. c.
~, n - Ai~,4o I~o%o y
council, asking us to amend the ordinance
so as to exclude the territory within the
limit on the outward slope Of the hill. And
you know full we'll that the association pc
tition was presented to the council on that
particular occasion as an expression of
the members antagonism to the Koefed re-
quest.
Now. to answer your questions:
First-"Have you, Mr.. Toll, or have any
of your colleagues acted upon that petit
tion?" Yes The council acted upon that
petition when 1t so summarily denied the
Kofoed request.
Second-"Have you prepared a new ordi-
nance?" No. The council did not act upon
the request in the petition asking the refor-
matior of the ordinance, since to do so
would have been to contract the limit to
the very lines desired by Messrs. Koefed
ct al. MY dear sir, "you cannot eat you'd
cake and keep 1t, too"
Permit me to call your attention to an
other Inconsistency. In one sentence you
chide the council for not listening to your
petition, while in the next you admit that
some members have favored the 160O-foot
ordinance. Why not be manly and frank
and admit that when the only test ever ap-
piled to the council on this ordinance was
made in the presentation of the Koefed Pc
tition the members stood by their guns
most Dewey-like and never lost a man.
regret that your sensibilities should
have suffered fracture from my human
itarian attempt to avert your acrimonious
shaft from infiicting injury upon an official
body Of honorable men. Evidently 1t makes
difference whose OK Is gored, since YOU
though 1t only a pleasant duty few
days ago to puncture with perfect impu-
nifty the epidermis Of nine men who were
honestly striving to do their duty.
In conclusion. let me beg you to refrain
from any further attempts to elevate your
self into martyrdom by assuming that your
former friends have suddenly become bit
ter enemies because OF your desire to do
only what every good Citizen be he oil or
anti-oil sentiment, feels should be done
to protect our parks: All t1tast I object to
having the torch placed In my hands which
shall light the fagots already piled high
about you In imagination. If perchance
you have enemies. be assured you will not
discover among them
CHARLES H. TOLL.
q. A. r. and Ambitious individuals
To the Editor of the Los Angeles Herald:
As an old soldier and a member of the
Grand Army, thank you for your timely
warning in last Sundays issue, under the
heading. "Alger's Manipulations."
In the same connection you might have
called attention to the labored effort of
some members Of the q. A. r. at Long
Beach a few days since to boom the Re-
publican candidate for railroad commits
sioner, Mr.. Blackstock of Ventura.
The fact that Mr.. B. was formerly a
Confederate soldier does not justify the
Grand Army organization In going out of
it's way to advertise him, or to thrust his
pretensions upon old soldiers in this dis
trict.
The offense consists in allowing the or
ganization to be used at all to promote the
ambitions of individuals whether mem
hers of the Grand Army or the Confed-
crate army.
The bad taste and injustice Of the affair
q