The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-10-21

Recognizing the fact that John l..
Love Esq. would be familiar with the
election laws, since he was for four
years Attorney General of the State,
four years Assistant District Attorney
of San Francisco and for two years City
and County Attorney for San Francisco
and as such member Of the Election
Commission, The Call asked him to give
legal opinion on the status OF Mayor
James D. Phelan, the candidates for
Supervisor who have registered in
wards in which they do not live and of
the members Of the subcommittee of
"One Hundred" upon whom the re-
sponsibility is being thrown, assuming
that what has been printed in The Call
is true. The following is Mr.. Love s
reply:
SAN FRANCISCO, October 20, 1898.
To the Editor of The Call-Sir: In an
you my ideas upon the, subject from a
legal standpoint as plainly as 1 can.
When the consolidation act was passed,
each ward was represented by Super
visor, who was a. citizen and voter of that
ward and who was elected by the voters
of that ward only, This led to what was va.
uation which coined the word and put it
into politics.
To do away with this evil, the Legis-
lature, which at that time, under the old
constitution, had the power to amend the
consolidation act, passed law that the
Supervisors should be voted for by the
but they still adhered to the proposition
that a candidate for supervisor must be
an actual and not temporary" T Tensdide e OF
law to-day.
After the adoption of the new consttu-
ton in 1879, 1t became impossible for the
ricIof 70, ruith T.
dalton act in any way. To general laws
we are amenable, but not TO any special
act.
last Legislature abolishing the wards. for
what object or for what purpose | can.
now stareS US in the face.
That some attorneys said this act is I'M
constitutional and special legislation is the
main excuse of Mayor Phelan and his
followers for their dereliction IN register
ing prospective candidates for Supervisors
in wards and precincts IN which they do
not belong.
name who does not know that the. law
abolishing the wards is unconsutullonal
and of no force or effect. They might as
well have abolished the consolidation act
as a whole; and the committee or one
hundred and Mr.. Phelan admit 1t when
they say that they resorted to false and
fraudulent registration in case the courts
should so decide" This fear of the courts
is one of the numerous excuses Mr., Phe-
Ian gives for what mas Decu uOue. HoHc
is a very sharp edge to this business
Somewhere. for notice the Mayor is al
ways very careful to say II didn't do it.
/ propose to demonstrate from the
statute law that all of these registrations
of Supervisors named by you, except one,
were fraudulent. and felonious, and II
they vote on such registration Iney Will
commit another felony.
The Sternberg case affords very little
light for the reason that this case went
off on the question whether the crime had
been proven or not, as to whether the
accomplices who gave Sternberg away
were corroborated or not. 1t was ad-
nitted ON all sides that it was crime.
Now / am about to quote from the
Sternberg case, and see, Mr.. Editor, IL you
can distinguish it from the one we are
writing about. ,,.
"Henshaw, J.. Defendant was charged
with procuring and allowing A Gutman
to be registered as a voter In the pre-
cinct register of a precinct in which he
was not entitled to be registered The
tue of the provisions OF the purity of
elections act (Stats. 1893, p. 2D. The Of
Tense charged comes within the purview
of section % thereof.
"Gutman, called by the prosecution,
testified that defendant requested him to
he could vote for Mahoney. 1t
was shown that Gutman did not reside
at the hotel, and that he did reside at
172 Clara street.
Now is there any distinction between
voting for Mahoney or for yourself for
Supervisor? Is there any distinction be-
tween the Baldwin Hotel and the Occi-
dental Hotel, the Mob Hill House and
the Coso House? The court says further
on, at page s: Every person (and the