Los Angeles herald., 1905-04-06
DeposedC Councilman Wins
Case Before High
Tribunal
DRAWS SALARY FOR
HIS UNEXPIRED TERM
ConstitutiOnality of Recall Not
Questioned-Wins on
Technicality


from the Sixth ward, was not recalled.
Such is the decision of the supreme
court.
Davenport thought he was recalled.
The Good Government league and the
Sixth ward voters thought he was re-
called Present Councilman Hough-
ton thought his predecessor was re-
called.
All we're mistaken. Davenport was
legally the representative of the Sixth
ward in the council until last January,
when his term expired.
The former councilman will draw
four months salary, from September
to January. DR.. Houghton has al
ready drawn his salary for Davenport's s
unexpired term, although according to
the decision of the court he is not en-
titled to the money.
Favorable to Davenport
Without discussing in any way the
constitutionality of the recall amend
geles the supreme court of the state of
California yesterday rendered de-
cision in the Davenport case favorable
To the deposed councilman, basing the
action on a technical point involved in
the manner in which the recall cleo
ton was called.
Chief Justice Beatty, in a dissenting
opinion, holds that the recall amend
ment to the Los Angeles city charter
Is absolutely constitutional and declares
that the citizens of the Sixth ward
had the legal right to recall Daven-
port, If they so desired, and elect an
other in his place, and that the deposed
councilman is not entitled to the salary
which he would have drawn had he
remained in Office.
j. P. Davenport petitioned the courts
for reinstatement in the city council #
Los Angeles and for his salary for the
full month of September, during which
month he was deposed. The case was
appealed to the supreme court of the
state, and as a case of public interest
was set for hearing ahead of the regu-
lar program, but the necessary delay
involved made it impossible to hear
the case until seven months had elapsed
and after another election had been
held.
Could Not Reinstate Him
This being the case the court could
not reinstate Davenport, but declared
the recall election to have been Illegally
held, and issued a writ of mandate on
the city auditor of Los Angeles for
the deposed councilman's salary for
September, and the subsequent months
he would have served, or up to January
/, 1905.
entirely on a technically in the manner
Of calling the election. Justices Nc
Farland, Shaw, Van Dyke, Lorrigan
and Henshaw agreed that unless the
names appearing on the recall petition
were on the great register, the proceed
ings would not be legal, as they con-
strue the charter amendment provid-
ing for the recall to read that only
voters whose names are on the great
register have the right to sign a re-
call petition. and that those appearing
in the .incompleted great register but
not in the complete one which is made
up at the time of the elections, should
be scra tched from a recall petition.
The justices construed the object of
this section of the law to have been
drawn for the purpose of preventing
newcomers in a community from I'M
seating an official, and political status
Of that community.
Names Not on Great Register
The principal point on which the de-
cis,Qn was based was the allegation
by the court that the city clerk of
Los Angeles certified to the correct
ness of the names on the recall petit
tion Illegally. While there were suf-
ficient signers on the petition, who
were registered voters In the Sixth
considerable per cent, or a sufficient
per cent, had registered after the cleo
ton previous and therefore were not
on the great register of 1902. The court
held that affidavits of registration in
the incomplete great register did not
give the registrar the right to sign
recall petition under the amendment
providing for the same.
Davenport took his seat in the coun-
ell in January 1908. and remained in
office until September of the next year.
But in August, 1904, petition was
filed with the council asking that the
district represented by Davenport re-
call it's councilman and elect another
man to fill his place. In response 10
the election a special election was held
and A. ID. Houghton was chosen.
The question before the supreme