The herald., 1898-11-16
New Charter


To the Editor of The Los Angeles Herald:
The proposed charter submitted by the
recent board of freeholders asks the voters
of our city to surrender their present right
to choose for themselves three of the gen
eral officers of the city now elective by
them, viz: City attorney, superintendent
of streets and city engineer, and vest the
power of appointment in the mayor, whom
they may elect.
In deciding the question whether it is
best to do SO, we must bear in mind that
power once surrendered is hard to recover.
And that the right to choose those who shnll
be in authority over us was achieved not
quite century and quarter ago after cen
turies of oppression and denial of such
right, and to surrender it in however small
degree looks like a step backward and an
impeachment Of our fitness for self-govern.
ment.
Conceding, however, for the moment that
the appontive power in the mayor Of Ger
tain now elective officers is better than the
present elective method, why we ask were
city attorney, engineer and street superin-
tendent named for appointment in prefer
ence to others of the city officials, notably
those who are charged with the duty Of
collecting, caring for and the disbursing the
ofttimes hard-earned dollars which are
wrung from the citizens in the shape Of
taxes?
The financial side of municipal admins
tration is one that touches the citizen most
vitally, and is one that surely ought to be
hedged about with the strongest safeguards.
And if it is the best thing to have any Of
the now-elective officers appointive, the
assessor, collector, treasurer and auditor
should have been considered az amongst
the first to come under the appointive
head, for SO far as the city attorney is con-
cerned, il weak one is elected the council,
in the present and the proposed charter,
has the power to engage outside counsel
to manage entirely or assist in any of the
city's litigation and so remedy the bad
choice of the people, whilst for incapacity
in any of the others no such remedy is
provided.
The argument has been for giving ap-
pointive power to the mayor, that we would
then have some one to hold responsible
for the city government; seeming to assume
that the voters would make no mistake in
the choice of mayor, and that he would
be certain to choose better men to fill the
officers than the voters could choose for
themselves.
That being so, as it would follow from
the deposit of such power in his hands,
why did not the proposed charter give him
the absolute power of removal Of any of his
appointees whenever it should seem to him
that the good of the public service demands
such removal?
If he can be trusted to make appoint.
ments in the first instance, surely he ought
to be trusted with the power of removal.
For it is folly to hold him responsible for
the conduct of their respective offices if
when he finds that any one is not properly
discharging the duties OF his office he has
10 power to replace him with good man.
If the claim is correct that we would
have better city government by giving large
appointive power to the mayor, surely the
clerk, treasurer, collector, auditor, assessor
and board of education should come in that