The San Francisco call., 1898-01-20
BRALY'S CASE
 FOR EXAMPLE Dubious Methods of Los Angeles Political
 Purifiers.
How Lewis Thorne Was K nifed in the Interest of the War
 rant-Shaver.
JuggIery of the League for Better City Government in Selecting a
 School Director.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 19.-How the League for Better City Government does pure" politics is beautifully ex- emplified in the case of School Director J. H. Braly. According to the state ment of a former member of the league MT. Braly's nomination as school director in the Fifth Ward was conceived, executed and consummated in fraud by certain members of the board of directors. The documentary evidence to prove this lies in the re- cords of the league, but access to them has been absolutely refused, not only to The Calls correspondent, but to members of the league in good stand ing. c. S. Walton, the secretary, in re- fusing access to the records, is evident ly simply obeying instructions of the board of directors.
 Judging from the circumstances con- nected with the nomination of Braly, never was a candidate more anxious | than he to secure a nomination and 1 election This anxiety has caused the more comment as the office of school l director is without emoluments, and 1 MT. Braly himself has said that the shaving of teachers warrants was not engaged in by his bank as a mat l ter of business. but simply as an &C., 1 commodation to the teachers. At the last city election the League | for Better City Government had an en- tire municipal ticket in the field, with ! the exception of a candidate for Mayor. l Some of these candidates had the nom- | ination of the league alone, while oth- CTS on the ticket were the nominees of ! either the Republican or Democratic party and were only indorsed by the i league. But all nominees and indOrSeeS | had to be balloted for by the league members. or had to be formally nom | mated or indorsed in the league con vention. In case any candidate failed 1 to receive a majority of the ballots, the selection of the candidate was thrown | into the convention.
 According to the bulletin issued by ! the league on October ', 1896, nomina- 1 tions had to be filed between g a. m. | on October T. and D. m. on October 14. This bulletin further stated that each | nomination for a city office had to be accompanied by a document signed by | twenty members of the league, or of 1 the ward clubs allied with the league. such document being virtually a peti-
 tion asking the candidate to stand for | the nomination.
 Up to D. m. of October fl only one ! nomination had been filed with the
 
 | Ward. This was in favor of Lewis Thorne. Thorne is the secretary of the Republican County Committee. presi-
 dent of the Young Mems Republican
 League and secretary of the Sixth Dis 1 trict Agricultural Association. Every
 name on Thorne's petition was that of
 resident of the Fifth Ward. Accord 1 ing to the plan adopted by the league ! this insured the indorsement of Thorne
 by the league.
 Thorne was too good a Republican, | however, to suit the directors who con-
 trolled the league. He had already re- l ceived the nomination of the Republi- can party, and his indorsement by the league would have insured his cleo tion. Under these circumstances, trifies like violations of the regulations
 adopted by the league, the signing of
 other peoples names without their | knowledge and treachery to a fellow member were not allowed to stand in | the way.
 There was a meeting of the board of | directors of the league on the night of
 October IA, which lasted until a late | hour. After some of the members left
 for home plan was conceived and car
 ried out by those who remained to get
 up petition among themselves nomi-
 hating certain persons for School Di-
 rector for the Fifth Ward. One peti-
 tion was drawn up on which the names
 of four candidates were placed. This
 action was taken about Il o'clock at
 night, or six hours after the time fixed
 by the league for the closing of nomi-
 nations, The four persons named as
 candidates were J. H. Braly, B. R.
 Baumgardt, J. P. A. Petsch and Fred | Walton.
 The balloting for nominees was done
 by mail each member being sent a
 ticket which contained the names of
 all the candidates for each office. After
 marking his ballot the voter remailed
 it to the league and 1t was opened and
 counted by the central committee of
 the league. The candidate who re-
 ceived a majority of all the votes cast
 for any particular office was at once
 declared the nominee of the league for
 that office. If no one candidate re-
 ceived a majority his selection was
 thrown into the convention which met
 later.
 It Is charged that the idea of the di-
 rectors In fixing up a petition with four
 names on It as nominees for School Di- . rector in the Fifth Ward was to pre-
 vent choice by ballot and thus trans z fer to the convention, which the execu- tive committee expected to control and . which 1t did control, the selection of the candidate.
 What added to the iniquity of the ac- ton taken by the members of the board
 of directors on this occasion was that
 there were only sixteen of them pres
 ent. AS already stated it required twenty names to be attached to a pe- tition to make it valid. In this emer-
 gency 1t is charged that H. w. O'Mel- , veny, who was a member of the exc cutive committee, signed the following names of four members who were not . present.: Frank A. Gibson, J. R. New l berry, Charles Forman and John F. Francis.
 AS was anticipated, no one of the , five candidates got a majority, and the I convention subsequently nominated J 2 H. Braly. To further show that this ac- tion of the directors was not taken I with an honest purpose in view, bu; 7 simply to defeat Thorne, the fact is cited that the names of four candi- dates were put on the one petition and
 that only three of the twenty names
 attached to the petition were names o1
 members who lived in the Fifth Ward
 There was an understanding in the league that each ward should nomi-
 nate its own Councilman and member d of the Board of Education