The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-29
PERTINENT QUESTIONS.

Y rE observe with pain that esteemed con-
M temporary, The Non Partisan, edited and pub
lished by the conductor OF the late lamented
Bulletin, the outset of its is practcing yell
low politics. We find in volume I, No I, OF our con-
temporary the following remarkable specimen OF
political rot:
The corporations bosses. boodlers and push
generally appear to be strong combination but on
liberal estimate from seven to eight thousand
votes are all that may be credited to that combna
ton. We ask the question, Will the fifty thousand
or more honest, intelligent voters and taxpayers
submit to being ruled by this association of VILLAIN
les, will they rise in their might and crush out
the dastardly attempt that is being made by the
bosses stand up this city and plumber it at their
pleasure? Citizens of San Francisco, what say you?
Will YOU through indifference and neglect of your
civic obligations, make possible such condition, or
will you rally protect the fair fame and best in
terests of San Francisco?
This reads exactly like ante-election effuson in
an "anti-railroad' Democratic organ. OF course
we do not suspect our esteemed contemporary, The
Non Partisan, of any such motive actuates Dem
ocratic organs in shouting about the Bosses and yet
it is doing politics in the way and is publishing
the same character of matter What construction the
people will place upon the utterances OF a political
newspaper which opens its campaign with such in
sufferable blather as we have quoted remains to be
seen They may not be as charitable as we are.
In connection with this subject, however it is per-
tinent to address the esteemed Non-Partisan few
questions. OF the fifty-three candidates who
ceivng its support thirty-seven are Democrats who
have been nominated by committee appointed by
lanes D. Phelan. Is our contemporary aware Of the
fact that all or nearly all of these have promised
in the event of their election give their patronage
to Phelan? Can it be possible that the fact has es-
capped our contemporary attention that this patron
age will if secured, make Phelan the most powerful
political boss the city has had? What does our
contemporary by referring to the other bosses
in warning tones while actually assisting Boss
Phelan's ambition to eclipse all bosses in political
power?
The Non-Partsan is vigorously supporting sub
stantiay the entire Phelan ticket. True, it has
few Republicans on its list, but they have been named
mostly for unimportant Offices The Board of SUI
pervsors with its vast powers the patronage Offices
with their tremendous influence, and the Judiciary
with its great strength, have all been turned
Phelan and his crowd of autocrats, Fay, McNab
| Popper and Braunhart. Does our contemporary
think this is going to promote good government?
| AS we understand, the objection to bosssm con-
ssts in the fact that it in the hands Of
single man the power to control the powers OF
taxation and disbursement This leads to corruption
for the reason that it is human nature waste and
nlisapproprate that which belongs to others. What
does The Non Partisan mean by supporting scheme
designed to bring this condition about, and which
will place the people of San Francisco at the mercy
of Boss Phelan? Does it think him sant9
We address Our contemporary these questions in
no spirit of idle banter. The Republicans of this city
who have heretofore supported non-partisan move
ments and who asked by Deacon Fitch to
vote the Phelan ticket are entitled to have them
answered The Non Partisan need not expect them
to vote for its candidates this year unless it usthes
| its extraordinary course