The San Francisco call., 1898-05-23

pended by the Mayor and removed by 1 the Supervisors for cause. The Mayor suspends the officer, and may fill his place while he stands suspended. There Is no provision limiting the period of suspension. It is quite possible under the charter to suspend him for the re- mainder of his term. It is true that the Mayor Is required to immediately call session of the Supervisors to hear the charges, but there Is no provision which requires them to complete the hearing at once or to decide the case at once. They may keep it dallying for weeks and months In the meantime the Mayors appointee fills the vacancy and removes the subordinates If he | likes.
 The great objection to this power Is that 1t enables the Mayor and the Su- pervisors to remove persons elected by the people. There are ample provis- ions now for the removal of officers if they violate their duties, but the provis- ions now secure accused officers the privilege of trial in court before an impartial tribunal. They do not turn him over to the mercies of a political party, which may be unfriendly to him or which he defeated at the last cleo tion.
 Furthermore, this power in the Mayor and Supervisors would enable them to get rid of an Auditor and Treasurer
 
 upon the treasury. If we ever have the misfortune to have a Mayor and a Board of Supervisors who have loose ideas about the expenditure of public moneys their way to the public treas ury is clear They can suspend Treas urer and Auditor. appoint persons who entertain the point of view which they hold, and the safeguards of the treas ury are gone. It should be cardinal rule in municipalities that the Auditor and Treasurer are independent to the very highest degree of every other off, be responsible to the people who elect them and to the courts This provision is essential to the welfare and security of good government, more than to the mere security of the officers mentioned.
 III.
 It doubles the numbe- of our cleo tions, making them annual, at an un- necessary cost of ninety thousand dollars and more per annum.
 An election in San Francisco costs over $1S0, 0,oO0 That of 1896 cost $195, 556 7S Auditors report, 1897. pp. 20 and 2D Independent of this, the ire quency of elections Is one of the curses of the country; and yet the Board or Freeholders, in framing the charter not only did not studiously endeavor to render them less frequent, Dul OH tHe contrary doubled their number.
 The even numbered years are given over to presidential and gubernatorial elections. Immediately upon the adop- tion of the constitution in 1879 the Leg islature provided for the election of all county and city and county officers at the time of the presidential and gubernatorial elections in the even numbered years. So that, for nearly twenty years, we have had our munic- ipal elections in even-numbered years and have been free from the worry and expense of them In odd-numbered ones. By the charter the municial elections are required to be held in No- vember of the odd-numbered years Consequently, In every four years we will have one gubernatorial, one presi- dential and two municipal elections in- stead. as now, of one joint guberna- torial and municipal election and one joint presidential and municipal cleo ton. In other words, we will have two additional elections every four years. and those two elections will cost s3s0,- 900 and more. We will have by the operation Of the charter, an unneces- sary expense of $90000 and over per annum, not counting the turmoil and excitement which unsettle business and entail injury and loss.
 ".
 No provision is made for register ing voters for the municipal elections to be held under the charter.
 How the framers of the charter ex-