The herald., 1898-11-21
iour years to correct mistake made at an

four years to correct mistake made at ar
election.
Mr.. Stuart spoke IN favor of the charter
He believed its adoption would be a NOV.
in the right direction. Power had hereto
fore been too much diffused. A munici
pality would do well to initiate the practic,
of corporations, which had learned that tn.
greatest profits were obtained by centraliz
ing the power in general manager. TIL,
mayor, if clothed with greater powers
would be personally responsible for the
acts of his appointees and, realizing it
would guard more effectively against tn,
inefficiency of such officials. BY the new
/, charter the city would be placed in much
the same relation to its residents as the
country is by the Federal constitution
which entrusts to the president some pow
ers not vested in the kings of the old world
He thought, too, that by amendment any
defects could be eliminated from the char
ter later; whereas, refusal to accept the
charter as it stands at this time would long
defer the reforms most needed.
j. D. Steele took issue as to the desirabil.
ity of initiating the Federal constitution in
respect to granting increased power to the
mayor, and characterized that very provis-
ion, clothing the president with almost
dlctatorial power, as the greatest weakness
of the American government. By the adop-
ton of the charter Los Angeles would be
reduced to the level of a medieval dukedom.
The charter had some good features, but
its many bad ones more than counterbal-
anced them and the charter ought to be
voted down.
George Martin explained the withdrawal
of the delegates of the Socialist Labor party
at the charter convention. He said they
discovered that they were in a minority and
that the convention was to be run in a
strictly partisan manner. If they remained
they would be bound by the action of the
majority to favor any charter proposed;
while, by withdrawing, they preserved their
independence. This was said to correct
a misapprehension of the real motives of the
delegates, he said, such as had been alluded
to by Mr.. Stuart in criticism during the
evening of their fault-fnding, when the
charter was formulated, because it con-
tanned so few of the socialist features ap-
proved by their party, though they had
not remained in the convention to aid in
shaping that very instrument.
William H. Knight said the charter was
rot an ideal instrument, not so good as the
city ought to have, and not SO good as it
would have been if it's construction had been
left to the Union Reform league. Still, by
looking it over carefully, many sections wor
thy of approval could be found. Taken as
a whole, it was better than the old and de-
serving of adoption. If adopted and studied
its defects could be remedied by amendment
II, on the other hand, it should be voted
down, nothing could be done for two years
and even then the same difficulties would
have to be met as were experienced this
time. A board of freeholders would have
to be elected, and all classes would be rep
resented thereon, including those affected
by corporate influence, the banking bus
ness, and the push" element To secure
a charter acceptable to the people at large
from such source would be impossible. II
was only by taking what it was possible tc
secure and then improving upon it that q
charter could be obtained. Compromise
was unavoidable, and it might be made az
well first as last. He favored the adoption
of the charter and should vote for it.
w. c. Petchner responded to urgent calls
though averse to speaking. He had com
mended the charter SO far as it favored civil
service reform, the acquisition of public
utilities and the initiative; but the paper
of Mr.. Bailey had suggested to his mind q
grave defect. 1t was fact that while os.
tensibly favoring the requirement of pub
lie utilities, it was SO framed that nothing
beyond new water system could be hoped
for by its adoption.
After some further discussion, mainly in
opposition to the charter, the meeting was
adjourned.